Intercomprehension

and Plurilingualism
Assets for Italian Language in the USA

Editors

Roberto Dolci and Anthony Julian Tamburri

Transactions 3 John D. Calandra Italian American Institute

Queens College, The City University of New York
 Intercomprehension
Plurilingualism
and
Assets for Italian Language in the USA
T A B L E O F C O NT E NT S

Preface Foreword Introduction

Anthony J. Tamburri Carlo Davoli Roberto Dolci

On America’s Foreign Language Education Policy and the Foreign Language Deficit
Roberto Dolci

Intercomprehension Studies in Europe: History, Current Methodology,

and Future Developments
Elisabetta Bonvino

The Ties That Bind: Italian for Spanish Speakers in Intercomprehension

Clorinda Donato and Cedric Joseph Oliva

We Can Learn Through Languages Because We Are Defined by Languages

Pierre Escudé

Integrating Plurilingualism into Curriculm Design: Toward a Plurilingual Shift

Barbara Spinelli

The Florida State University Experience: Design, Development, and

Implementation of Italian for Spanish Speakers Courses
Fabrizio Fornara and Irene Zanini-Cordi

The French/Italian for Spanish Speakers Project: From Idea to Permanent Program
Markus Muller

Mona Lisa in the Classroom: An Educational Proposal for

Integrated Training in Intercomprehension
Diego Cortés Velásquez

French and Italian for Spanish Speakers: San Pedro High School—A Practical Study
of the Logistics of Teaching Another Romance Language to Spanish Speakers
Ida Lanza and Diane Hartunian
 INTERCOMPREHENSION STUDIES IN EUROPE:
HISTORY, CURRENT METHODOLOGY, AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

ELISABETTA BONVINO

1. INTERCOMPREHENSION
The prototypical representation of linguistic interaction is based on speak-
ers sharing a single code: in order to interact, speakers produce and under-
stand utterances belonging to the same language.

Figure 1. Communication between L1 speakers

It should however be emphasized that even in cases of total monolingual-

ism the sharing of the code is only ever partial, not only at a lexical level (we
do not know a word or we do not give it the same meaning) but also at other
levels: pragmatic, syntactic, morphological, and even phonological.
In a communication model as shown in Figure 1, the speakers may have
different competence levels when using a single code for interaction that may
not coincide with their mother tongue (see Figures 2 and 3).

29
Figure 2. Communication between L1 speaker and L2 speaker

Figure 3. Communication between L2 speakers

A communicative situation seemingly different from the one given in

Figures 1 and 2 is that in which those participating in the interaction only
partially share the code; that is to say they are able to “understand languages
without speaking them” (Blanche-Benveniste and Valli, 1997) (see Figure 4).
A form of plurilingual communication may arise from this “partial” compe-
tence (understanding and not speaking) 1 —with two distinct codes being
used—in which those who take part in the communicative event understand
the language of the others and express themselves in the language or lan-
guages they know.

1 On partial competence, see 3.2.

30
Figure 4. Communication between speakers using their different L1

This phenomenon—called intercomprehension (from now on referred to

as IC)—is a widespread practice for millions of speakers who regularly come
into contact with speakers of other languages, especially similar or related
ones and therefore have the chance to exchange linguistic elements. Commu-
nication in IC exploits the same linguistic, inferential, and cognitive strategies
that make communication in the same language possible and is favoured both
by the characteristics of the languages and their pragmatic nature and by the
variable competency levels of individuals.
Studies on IC deal with the spontaneous phenomenon2 and attempt to
make a detailed description of the comprehension processes, with the aim of
proposing operational models in order to carry out teaching programs that
will increase not only comprehension skills but also the ability to interact in
IC.
IC studies is a wide field of research that has common objectives with
other related studies like mutual intelligibility, semi-communication, and re-
ceptive multilingualism, on one side, and, on the other, with second-language
acquisition, studies on multilingualism and plurilingualism, studies on bilin-
gualism and heritage language learners. Research on IC provides a privileged
point of view and highlights some of the phenomena being studied from the
fields mentioned above. In particular, IC is able to offer significant data and
reflections on:

Linguistic (but not only) comprehension processes.

Input processing on interlanguage development.

Social representation of:
2 By spontaneous we mean a phenomenon that does not happen as a result of explicit teaching.

31
 - language learning,
- languages and linguistic varieties,
- monolingualism vs. bilingualism vs. plurilingualism and mul-
tilingualism.

Furthermore, as we will show in this article, a learning program based on

IC is interesting for the following reasons:

IC proposes rapid access to groups of languages and promotes

plurilingualism and preserves multilingualism.3 It is an approach
that is particularly suitable for multilingual contexts in which
there are targeted language policies aimed at promoting the lan-
guages used locally, including minority languages that are not of-
ten studied. It is therefore an approach in line with the language
policies hoped for in Europe.

IC can be useful for language learning in multilingual contexts
linked to immigration, e.g., in the case of heritage language learn-
ers (see Donato in this volume).4

IC highlights the importance of the mother tongue in the learn-
ing/teaching of languages.

IC develops learners’ cognitive and metacognitive skills.

IC develops the prior knowledge of individuals, and, from a con-
structivist point of view, it favors the development of competenc-
es in other languages (that is, other than those already acquired by
learners) by exploiting the knowledge learners already have.

3
“Multilingualism' refers to the presence in a geographical area, large or small, of more than
one 'variety of language' i.e. the mode of speaking of a social group whether it is formally
recognized as a language or not; in such an area individuals may be monolingual, speaking
only their own variety. 'Plurilingualism' refers to the repertoire of varieties of language which
many individuals use, and is therefore the opposite of monolingualism; it includes the lan-
guage variety referred to as 'mother tongue' or 'first language' and any number of other lan-
guages or varieties. Thus in some multilingual areas some individuals are monolingual and
some are plurilingual”. CEFR, (p. 5) http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Division_en.asp
4 By Heritage Learner we mean an individual who is raised in a home where a language is

spoken that is different from that of the context in which he/she lives. The learner may
speak or merely understand the heritage language and be, to some degree, bilingual in the
language of the context in which he/she lives (e.g. English) and in the heritage language
(adapted from Valdés 2000, 1).

32

IC blends with other existing approaches, such as Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), and can offer valid tools
for professions in which the use of more than one language is im-
portant.

Last but not least, it improves comprehension skills, develops
metacognitive competences, and favors interaction, but it can also
be the first phase of a program for the global learning of languages
(Ollivier, 2011).

2. EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT: A SHORT OVERVIEW

In the past twenty years, IC has been the focus of several European coop-
eration projects ranging from financing for the production of teaching mate-
rials (see § 4) to the establishment of a pool of universities and organizations
involved in IC (REDINTER, www.redinter.eu) and the creation of training
courses on IC (Euroforma, Formica, Intermar).
The first research projects were started up in France, Germany, and
Denmark between the 1970s and 1980s. In the French field, a conference ti-
tled “La Latinité aujuord’hui” (1983) gave rise to the idea of developing a
dialogue on Latin intercommunicability.
According to the participants, this intercommunicability could easily be
achieved as long as there was the political will to do so and teaching practices
were developed that were able to develop the transparencies emerging from
the contact of the Romance languages (Caddéo & Jamet, 2013). These ideas,
expressed in an issue of Français dans le monde, by André Reboullet (1983),
echoed two articles published in the 1970s. The first one was by Francis De-
byser (1970) and encouraged the exploitation of the similarities among the
Romance languages for the purposes of written comprehension by passing
from one language to another. Another article, titled “L’enseignement de
l’espagnol aux francophones: pour une didactique des langues voisines,” writ-
ten by Louise Dabène (1975), later the coordinator of the Galatea Project,
reached the conclusion that the processes of learning vary according to the
learner’s perception of the gap with the L2. According to Dabène, this is due
not only to the formal similarity of the languages but also to the learner’s atti-
tude and “organizational” activity. These processes, which today we will refer
to as cognitive operations are, for example, generalizations, the perception of
analogies and differences, becoming aware of systems, and so on.

33
 In the same period, Claire Blanche-Benveniste, a French linguist who
grew up in a multilingual environment (Russian, Yiddish, Greek, Spanish Ju-
dean, Turkish, Portuguese, and French) began to consider the possibility of a
simultaneous approach to the teaching of Romance languages.
In the 1990s some European teams began to work more or less inde-
pendently and in parallel on projects now considered to be IC milestones: the
team coordinated by Claire Blanche-Benveniste for the EuRom45 project; the
team coordinated by Louise Dabène for the Galatea6 project; Franz Joseph
Meissner, Horst Klein, and Tilbert Stegmann for the German Eurocomrom
project; and finally the Danish project launched by Jørgen Schmitt Jensen,
which concluded with the publication of some comparative grammars devel-
oped in order to facilitate IC (see Bach, Brunet, and Mastrelli, 2008).
The increase in the number of projects with European financing and the
interest of the European Commission in IC have ensured a certain continuity
in the research and supported the development of teaching tools (see para-
graph 5).
Over the years, we have witnessed a conceptual evolution of the notion of
IC, directly related to the communicative aims of the processes to be devel-
oped, to developments in technology and to the availability of teaching mate-
rials (Capucho, 2012).
The first projects (EuRom4, Eurocomrom, and so on), following in the
wake of the above-mentioned studies, concentrated on developing written
comprehension abilities. There are some more recent and promising research
on oral IC that concentrates mostly on pure reception7 and oral dimension is
present in some tools created for IC training, although the development of
this skill is rarely the primary objective (Jamet, 2011, p. 252). In IC tools the
oral is often used as a support, as in the case of EuRom4 and 5 and other ed-
ucational practices (Blanche-Benveniste, 2009; Bonvino & Caddéo, 2008;
Escudé and Janin, 2010). The Fontdelcat approach to orality stands out, the
premises of which favor the aspects of face-to-face communication by means
of comprehending audiovisual materials (Martin, 2008, 2012). As we will
see, attention to the development of comprehension and in particular to writ-

5 Universitè d’Aix en Provence (FR); Università degli Studi di Roma Tre (IT); Universidad de
Salamanca (ES); Universidade de Lisboa (PT)
6 They then merged into Galanet, Galapro and now MIRIADI. See below.
7 see Blanche –Benveniste 2009; Cortés 2012; Jamet 2007, 2009, 2011.

34
ten comprehension have contributed to the creation of the epistemological
basis of IC. All of these initiatives hold great promise for developing written
and oral skills and will make an important contribution to L2 comprehen-
sion.
The development of new technologies such as chat and discussion forums
has made it possible to go beyond basic reception. Some projects, especially
Galanet and now Miriadi, have gone from comprehension of written materi-
als to mainly, but not only, written interaction.
The educational experiences (Euroforma, Formica, and Intermar) have al-
so created contexts and developed teaching practices for oral interaction
(Bonvino, Escudé and Caddéo, 2011).
In 2011 one of the most important projects realized in IC came to an
end. It was the European Intercomprehension Network—Redinter (Lifelong
Learning Program, www.redinter.eu), coordinated by Filomena Capucho,
who gathered together most of the university institutions involved in this
field of research, thus favouring and increasing contacts among researchers
from various countries. The main aims of this network included the survey-
ing and assessment of IC’s good practices, the creation of a bibliographical
corpus, and a census of educational interventions through IC.

3. TEACHING INTERCOMPREHENSION: PRINCIPLES

We have seen that IC, understood as a phenomenon, follows communi-
cation processes and that, although there has been an evolution, most current
IC projects develop above all the reading comprehension. It is therefore
proper to ask what the projects labeled as IC have in common and what dis-
tinguishes them from L2 reading or listening courses. The principles that typ-
ify IC’s approach to teaching may be summarized as follows:

plurilingual approach

partial competences

attention to comprehension

learning transversality

reflection on languages and role of L1
3.1 Plurilingual approach in IC means more than one language in one course.
One of the most interesting characteristics shared by most of the ap-
proaches is the idea that IC ability can be developed in more than one lan-

35
guage at the same time or at least in the context of a single teaching program.
Learning a language means learning something of other languages or at least
paving the way for learning other ones (Simone, 1997, p. 32).
IC is therefore part of the framework of the plural approaches defined by
CARAP (2007, p. 3) as those teaching approaches that set up activities in-
clude more linguistic and cultural varieties. According to this theoretical
framework, plural approaches follow four directions that are not necessarily
in contrast with one another: IC, Language Awareness (Éveil aux langues), In-
tercultural Approach, and the Integrated Didactic Approach.
As we saw above,8 according to the Common European Framework of
Reference (from now on referred to as CEF), a plurilingual person has a rep-
ertoire of languages, language varieties, and competences of different kinds
and levels within that repertoire. The term repertoire implies a concept of
competence that can be broken down into diversified sub-competences, in
which diversified competences of different linguistic varieties are found, each
of which occupies “a sector, a particular position, and has a different range of
use and different functions” (Berruto, 2004, p. 125). Another fundamental
idea for language education, closely linked to the conception of plurilingual-
ism, is that languages are not to be considered as watertight compartments to
be tackled and learned separately.

[…] the aim of language education has been profoundly modified. It

is no longer seen as simply to achieve “mastery” of one or two, or
even three languages, each taken in isolation, with the “ideal native
speaker” as the ultimate model. Instead, the aim is to develop a lin-
guistic repertoire, in which all linguistic abilities have a place (CEF,
2001, p. 5)

The IC teaching methodology has given particular strength to plurilin-

gualism by directly or indirectly challenging traditional conceptions of lan-
guages and the learning of languages being in watertight compartments
(Coste, 2010, p. 194). As Jean-Claude Béacco (Escudé and Janin, 2010) ar-
gues, IC presents itself as being one of the possible resources for diversifica-

8 see footnote 4.

36
tion in language teaching since it distances itself from the classic division
“one course = one language.”
Finally, it should be underlined that work carried out on several lan-
guages simultaneously is extremely useful from a learning point of view as it
promotes linguistic comparisons.

3.2 Partial competence is a very important concept in IC epistemology.

According to the CEF, “plurilingualism” does not necessarily mean a
complete mastering of all the abilities, but rather the integration of various
repertoires. Plurilingualism, therefore, starting from the integration of various
repertoires, becomes a multiple competence, which is functional to a specific
and limited objective (CEF, 2001, p. 8). The competences in an individual’s
linguistic repertoire may, of course, also be partial. The concept of partial
competence is today a pillar of language education and is also the starting
point for research on the assessment of competences. This idea of partial
competence implies the possibility of separating various linguistic abilities by
isolating, for example, the written and oral comprehension skills. An example
of partial plurilingual competence in this context is that which allows a Span-
iard to possess a productive competence in Castilian but a purely receptive
competence in Catalan.
Although it is not always easy to isolate the different elements of linguis-
tic competence, which are closely interdependent, it is clearly possible to have
different degrees of competence in the various linguistic abilities; for example,
it is well known that there is a gap between receptive and productive abilities,
with the former being of a higher level, and learners acquire comprehension
skills much more rapidly than production skills.
Every linguistic repertoire is composed of different linguistic varieties,
partial or otherwise, and has above all the great advantage of diverging from
monolingualism and taking steps toward plurilingualism. Possessing receptive
skills in more than one language can answer the needs of some groups of
learners (for example, journalists who need to gather information from vari-
ous and authentic sources), and it can be achieved in a short period of time, if
the learning process involves more than one language and concentrates on re-
ceptive skills.

37
3.3 Attention to the processes and strategies for comprehension leads toward learn-
er autonomy.
There is agreement about the fact that input is essential for the process of
second-language acquisition (cf., among others, Gass, 1997; Krashen, 1985),
and many studies on second language acquisition have dealt with how input
is processed during the second-language learning process and how it is incor-
porated into the learner’s interlanguage system, as well as the quantity of in-
put needed for learning and the characteristics that input must have in order
to facilitate learning. Most studies agree that the need for input that is at least
partially comprehensible for learning and comprehension is therefore a cru-
cial element.
In spite of this, most of the practices and tools for L2 learning/teaching
are heavily oriented toward the development of written and oral production.
Even the assessment of comprehension abilities is mainly carried out through
production, for the obvious reason that the results of production are more
tangible. The processes of written or oral perception and comprehension are
very often neglected in teaching practice: Learners are not taught how to un-
derstand and put useful cognitive and metacognitive strategies into practice
for the purposes of comprehension.
Research in the field of L2 reading and listening has led to the emergence
of many works that have made it possible to identify and classify those cogni-
tive and metacognitive strategies that allow access to texts. They also under-
line the importance of a teaching intervention that does not neglect reading
and listening techniques and that centers on the product (testing understand-
ing) and also on the process, understood as the set of strategies and actions
used during reading or listening activities in order to be able to understand
(see Bouvet and Bréelle, 2004 for reading and Vandergrift, 2007, for listen-
ing).
A first general definition of a strategy may be that it is a “line of orga-
nized, targeted, and controlled action that an individual chooses in order to
carry out a task” (CEF, 2001, p. 12). In the field of language learning, a
“strategy” may be considered as an attitude or a set of actions aimed at favor-
ing learning in general or at completing a particular linguistic task, which in
the case of reading or listening might be understanding a text in ways appro-
priate to the type of text and to the objectives of the reader or listener. Learn-

38
ing strategies are often classified according to the typology of O’Malley et al.
(1985, p. 582–584), as metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective.
As indicated above, the approach to IC ascribes great importance to the
understanding process. Within this approach the various methodologies aim
at developing cognitive and metacognitive strategies through different prac-
tices but that contribute to learners becoming aware of how to use such strat-
egies and of their importance. Some examples are given below.
In the case of EuRom5, a methodology that proposes the reading and
comprehension of texts in five Romance languages, worthy of note is the
technique of the “transposition” of meaning into L1, where learners are re-
quired to put the flow of their thoughts on record during a silent reading and
make a sort of “translation” at the same time, however approximate it may
be, of the text in the target language in front of the class. This technique re-
calls the think-aloud protocol (or verbal report) and prioritizes careful obser-
vation and class sharing in the strategies used by the reader while reading,
with the objective of highlighting the cognitive process being employed. This
technique is usually used in experimental contexts. The operations forming
the basis of think-aloud are quite complex, and their scientific credibility has
often been criticized.9 However, the EuRom5 experience leads to a considera-
tion of the benefits of the application, even if partial, of the technique of re-
cording everything for teaching purposes, especially regarding learners be-
coming aware of the cognitive and metacognitive strategies for reading.
One further example of how strategies for comprehension are implicit in
IC training is the description of the EuroCom project. One of the basic con-
cepts of the EuroCom method is the definition and classification of different
types of transfer. The five types of transfer described by the EuroCom re-
searchers are i) intralingual in the source language, ii) intralingual in the
bridge language, iii) intralingual in the target language, iv) interlingual, and
v) transfer of learning. Special emphasis is put on the transfer of learning,
which is defined as instrumental knowledge that affects the acquisition of lin-
guistic structures and that is basically a transfer characterized by metacogni-
tion (Meissner and Klein, 2004). This type of transfer, according to Meiss-
ner, is an operation that contributes to the creation of a “monitor” that keeps

9 For a debate on the usefulness of the Think-aloud protocol in L2, see the recent review by

Bowles (2010).

39
the behavior of learning under surveillance through the management of the
comprehension strategies required to perform other types of transfer.
Still another example comes from those projects that involve written in-
teraction in IC on an online platform. Various teams associated with the
Galanet program have completed observations on the interactions on the
platform. These exchanges provide a rich corpus of communication exchang-
es among various Romance languages, which makes it possible to understand
how interlocutors negotiate production and comprehension and what the
implications of plurilingual interaction are. During these events it is possible
to observe significant metalinguistic activity carried out in the same language
or in different languages, where one interlocutor communicates with another.
The interlocutors therefore face each other with various strategies for over-
coming difficulties such as, for example, reframing words in their own lan-
guage to check their comprehension, using the other person’s language, ad-
justing their production if necessary to the other’s receptive competences, and
asking for help from and being helped by others according to the reciprocal
principle of tandem learning (Degache, 2004, p. 38). Thus they also become
aware of aspects such as place, together with the importance and influence of
the cultural dimensions of interactions.

3.4 Transversality and linguistic features allow comprehension between closely re-
lated languages.10
As is well known, the Romance languages share a common origin: Their
variations are located along a continuous space that makes possible a mutual
comprehension in neighboring areas (apart from the discretionary limits in-
troduced by modern state borders). From a typological point of view, too,
these languages are very similar, with the partial exception of French, which
differs from the other Romance languages because of some well-known char-
acteristics, such as the stricter word order and the overt expression of the sub-
ject, which makes it more similar to a Germanic language. The similarity be-
tween Romance languages covers all aspects of the organization of the lan-

10Intercomprehension is obviously easier for languages belonging to the same family, such
as the Romance languages which come from Latin, even though affinities between languages
can be found and exploited in unrelated languages too.

40
guage (among which especially the lexicon) and facilitates mutual under-
standing.11
The CEFR highlights more than once the fact that an individual’s lin-
guistic repertoire, like the rest of his/her network of knowledge, is not divided
into watertight compartments. Instead there is a transferability of knowledge:
Whatever is learned in one sector of experience can be transferred to other
sectors. This transferability is also found in the learning of languages: What is
known in general about language by those who speak a language, together
with specific knowledge of their L1 and other knowledge that may also be
partial, all guide and facilitate the comprehension of linguistic input from
other L2s (see Bettoni, 2001, p. 25; Klein, 1986, p. 64).
In order to understand a text in a language, learners belonging to the
same linguistic group can use various elements (lexical, phonological, mor-
phological, and syntactic) that make things easier thanks to the similarities
among the languages. One of the main objectives when teaching IC is pre-
cisely teaching learners to exploit the affinities and similarities among lan-
guages in order to increase comprehension skills. These affinities are tradi-
tionally neglected in language teaching because they tend to be seen as a dan-
ger rather than a resource. This legacy of contrastive analysis leads to the dis-
cussion of “false friends” while “real friends” are ignored, that is to say all the
cases in which there is clear transparency among languages (see Bonvino, Fio-
renza, Pippa, 2011).

11
For a wider treatment of the aspects of affinities among languages and the exploitation of
lexical transparency see Bonvino (2010).

41
 In the case of the Romance languages the similarity is obvious at all lan-
guage levels, starting from the lexicon (Table 1):

Table 1
Lexical similarities between Romance languages

Portuguese Spanish Catalan Italian French

infantil infantil infantil infantile infantile

diretor director director direttore directeur

enervação inervación innervació innervazione innervation

3.5 IC promotes reflection on languages and exploits the role of L1.

In the last few decades the debate on grammar and metalinguistic compe-
tence has been focused on the possibility of transforming explicit knowledge
of a language into procedural knowledge, in order to improve the executive
competences of a language. However, recently it has been emphasized that
metalinguistic reflection, besides facilitating and accelerating the process of
language learning, should have a central value in educational linguistics. In-
deed, it makes it possible to activate cognitive competences, which are useful
for improving general learning competences.
As has been pointed out, the simultaneous learning of more than one lan-
guage and attention to receptive skills make it possible to go into more detail
and therefore to become more aware of some very important aspects of com-
munication, such as how to express oneself in order to be understood, how to
adapt to others (i.e., the close relationship between comprehension and pro-
duction), the various ways in which languages function, language levels
(standard/non standard, formal/informal), and textual typologies.
By exploiting positive transfer, the plurilingual approach makes the best
use of L1. The use of L1 during the learning process has three effects: It reas-
sures learners, it facilitates access to other languages, and above all it provides
space for reflection. Thanks to the discovery of how other languages function,

42
learners also discover their L1 (Bonvino, 2012; Caddéo and Jamet, 2013). In
the Chainstories project and in the production tasks in L1 that may be part
of a reading activity with EuRom5 (cf. Cortés, in this volume), the objective
is to write a story in L1 in a collaborative way starting from what learners
have understood in an L2. The positive effects on L1 and on learners’ ability
to reflect on languages are very clear.

4. TEACHING INTERCOMPREHENSION: MATERIALS

The teaching tools used in the IC approach are aimed at specific audienc-
es and are very efficient and have been able to successfully exploit the princi-
ples of transferability of knowledge, the partiality of competences, and pluri-
lingualism.
The Redinter project was a chance to make a census of some good prac-
tices and some training courses dedicated to IC. Benucci and Cortés (2012)
infer that the Galanet, Galatea, Galapro, EurocomRom, Itinéraires Romans,
Euromania, EU&I and EuRom4/5 projects are present in several educational
fields, and this widespread presence bears witness to their recognized value
and makes evident their quality values, such as the reproducibility, efficiency,
coherence, and accessibility of these teaching tools.
In order to give an idea about the typology and variety of the existing
tools, the following list groups together some practices based on the following
characteristics:

1. Reading and understanding other languages

2. Written interaction on platforms
3. IC through a bridge language
4. IC beyond the Romance languages family
5. IC beyond language families
6. Oral IC through audiovisuals
7. IC for children and adolescents
8. IC for specific audiences

43
4.1 Reading and understanding other languages
Reading and understanding other languages is the main goal of the Gala-
tea and EuRom412 (see Interlat, Interrom, Eurom.Com.Text, ICE, IGLO)
projects. These first IC projects, exclusively aimed at the family of Romance
languages, concentrated on written reception as it is more accessible com-
pared to oral reception and made the most of the characteristics of the read-
ing process and the transparency among the languages. Subsequently, other
projects were born in the wake of EuRom4, each of which introduced new
ideas.

4.2 Written interaction on platform

Written interaction on platforms as Galanet (see Table 2), Galapro, and
Babelweb (see Table 3) give speakers of the various Romance languages (but
not exclusively) the chance of plurilingual training, especially in French, Ital-
ian, Portuguese, and Spanish, through the practice of IC in written interac-
tion. The objective of working on the Galanet and Galapro platforms is re-
spectively the development of collaborative projects between groups of stu-
dents from different Romance language countries and between teachers doing
IC training (De Carlo, 2011).

12 EuRom4 is the project from which EuRom5 stemmed, see Cortés in this volume.

44
 Table 2
Main features of Galanet project

Name: Galanet–Plateforme de forma-

tion à l’intercompréhension en
langues romanes
Years: 2001–now
Intended for: Adults, adolescents, and univer-
sity students
Languages involved: French, Italian, Spanish, and
Portuguese
Support: Online platform for plurilin-
gual communication
Description and methodology
This a hybrid methodology halfway between training ori-
ented toward action and a teaching project that exploits the
potentialities of the TIC. Some groups of students from dif-
ferent Romance language countries interact on a web plat-
form, each one using their own language. This communica-
tive interaction is motivated by the construction of a com-
mon project that develops over various work sessions. Dur-
ing each work session the participants meet in the virtual
room, which contains various resources: a forum space, a
meeting room, a chat room, a group notice board, and a
personal notice board. The forum is where discussion takes
place and where each person has to communicate with the
others to decide the discussion topic to be worked on by the
group.

45
 Table 3
Main features of Babelweb project

Name: Babelweb – action-oriented ap-

proach and on-line learning of
Spanish, French, and Italian
Years: 2008–now
Intended for: Adults, adolescents, and universi-
ty students
Languages involved: Spanish, French, Italian, Portu-
guese, Catalan, and Romanian
Support: Web platform
Description and methodology
Babelweb is a site for IC teaching based on the exchange of
texts, aimed at speakers of at least one Romance language
(L1 or L2). The project centers on an innovative teaching
concept: an interactive methodology based on IC that pro-
poses real-life tasks, which are thought of more as social in-
teractions than language lessons. The site has various re-
sources such as blogs, forums, and wikis that help students
carry out the tasks in the Romance languages: describing a
film, talking about a holiday, reviewing a film, writing po-
ems or recipes, and so on. The work on this site provides a
chance not only to learn the Romance languages but also to
use them in an interactive situation in which all the users
take part in the spaces for publication. With the aim of
guaranteeing the interactions, the site has been created fol-
lowing the principle of invisible teaching, a concept devel-
oped during the project that is one of its main characteris-
tics thanks to the use of web 2.0.

46
4.3 IC through a bridge language
IC through a bridge language is possible for Meissner, a researcher from
EuroCom project (see Table 4), who defines IC as “la capacité de com-
prendre une langue étrangère sur la base d’une autre langue sans l’avoir ap-
prise” (2003, p. 31). In this case the emphasis is on “another language,”
which does not necessarily have to be one’s mother tongue, given that the
work group is aimed at German-speaking students who know French and can
therefore access all the other Romance languages.

Table 4
Main features of EuroCom project

Name: EuroCom
Years: 1995–2003
Intended for: German students
Languages involved Romance languages, Germanic
languages, and Slavic languages
Support Handbook and website

47
 Description and methodology
The Eurocom method follows the teaching of plurilin-
gualism and aims to contribute to the development of read-
ing comprehension skills in more than one language simulta-
neously. It is intended for German speakers who use a Ro-
mance language as a bridge language.
The linguistic section of EuroCom, called “Seven sieves,”
aims to filter the linguistic material from Romance languages
in order to separate the transfer elements of form and func-
tion from the nontransferable elements. According to this
methodology, learners can apply some filters to understand a
text, the above-mentioned seven sieves, which will make pos-
sible the passage from one language to another. The seven
sieves for Romance languages are:
1. An international lexicon
2. The lexicon shared by the same language family: the “pan-
Romance” lexicon
3. The phonological similarities that concern a certain num-
ber of interlinguistic regularities
4. Spelling and pronunciation
5. The pan-Romance syntax, which makes it possible to iden-
tify the position of articles, nouns, adjectives, verbs, and
conjugations
6. The morphosyntactic elements, which make it possible to
recognize the basic elements of the words and syntax of the
Romance languages
7. The prefixes and suffixes that make it possible to recognize
many words

4.4 IC beyond the Romance languages family

IC can go beyond the Romance languages family. Although most of the
teaching practices have been developed in the field of Romance languages,
some projects such as IGLO, ICE, EuroComSlav, and EuroComGerm (part
of EuroCom project, see above) propose the exploitation of linguistic similar-
ities in other language families. In particular, the EuroCom researchers have

48
added a module for Slavic languages (EuroComSlav) and one for the Ger-
manic languages (EuroComGerm) to the Romance languages module. The
IGLO and ICE projects are particularly aimed at the latter addition.

4.5 IC beyond language families

The possibility of extending the IC concept beyond the languages of the
same family has been considered by some scholars (Capucho 2005, Doyé
2005 and Ollivier 2011). Peter Doyé (2005, p.13) believes that even though
the first work on IC concentrated on language families, this does not mean
that the family frontiers are insurmountable. The basic principle of this wid-
ened IC approach is that of raising awareness of languages.13 In fact, in 2003
the EU&I (European Awareness and Intercomprehension, see Tab. 5) re-
search began, which widened the field of research to plurilingual research be-
tween languages of different families. The Intercom, Intermar, e CINCO
projects are working in the same direction.

Table 5
Main features of EU&I project

Name: EU&I
Years: 2003–2007
Intended for: The general public. People working in
the social field with migrants, students,
and adults in mobility programs
(Erasmus and so on.) as well as students
and instructors for instructors involved
in the dissemination and use of the
teaching materials produced.
Languages in- Bulgarian, German, French, Greek,
volved: Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish,
and Turkish.
Support CD-Rom and website

13 « il y a éveil aux langues lorsqu’une part des activités porte sur des langues que l’école n’a

pas l’ambition d’enseigner » (CARAP, 2007)

49
 Description and methodology
The aim of the project is to contribute to the improve-
ment of language awareness in Europe through the devel-
opment of a method for teaching IC skills. This is to be
done through both the creation of learning materials and
the dissemination of the notion of IC and its concrete ap-
plicability to the daily life of common citizens. EU&I
groups together a series of play and pragmatic activities,
such as booking a hotel room in Portugal, understanding a
weather forecast in Dutch, or listening to a short story in
Swedish, which allow users to face comprehension tasks in
various languages and develop an awareness of strategies
with which they can access unknown languages.

4.6 Oral IC through audiovisuals

Oral IC has been experienced through videos for researchers on the
FontdelCat project, centred on the development of understanding of Cata-
lan, that propose an interesting and little-explored line of research and teach-
ing application: the use of audiovisual materials. Meaning is conveyed by the
images and by the voices of the actors who take part in scenes of student life
on a university campus.

4.7 IC for children and adolescents

IC has been proposed also for children and adolescents through Euroma-
nia, Chainstories, Itinéraires Romans, and Limbo, all of which are very dif-
ferent both in objectives and methodology. However, what they all have in
common is an interest in children and adolescents, which differentiates them
from most teaching practices that are aimed at university students. The most
structured work, which is full of pedagogical implications, is EuRomania,,14
which has the great merit of combining content and language integrated
learning and IC, a combination to be hoped for in tools for adults too.
4.8 IC for specific audiences

14 See Escudé in this volume.

50
 Some specific audiences have been the target of Intermar (see Tab. 6) and
CINCO, which are among the most recent projects. The former is a Life
Long Learning project that aims to promote plurilingualism and the learning
of languages through IC in a maritime context by means of courses offered by
the military and merchant Naval Academies. The material prepared for the
course, accessible on the Moodle platform, is organized according to a task-
based approach, and the courses have been tested in eight academies. The aim
of the CINCO project is to make IC a part of the professional training in or-
der to provide tools for cooperation among Romance language speakers.

Table 6
Main features of Intermar project

Name: Intermar
Years: 2011–2013
Adults; workers in naval occupa-
Intended for:
tions
English, Dutch, German, Swedish,
Russian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Por-
Languages involved:
tuguese, Spanish, French, Italian,
and Romanian
Online learning platform for inter-
Support comprehension and maritime Eng-
lish courses

51
 Description and methodology
Work at sea involves frequent contact with people speaking
different languages and coming from diverse cultures, either
onboard or ashore. Communication is ensured by the use of
both general and specialized English. Yet double synergies may
be developed between the learning of Maritime English and the
construction of IC competences, paving the way for other lan-
guages through specific IC activities and tasks.
The EU project Intermar is creating a European communi-
ty of maritime and naval institutions that share an IC approach
to foreign languages. Starting from existing materials, it will
build adapted products to create an effective course toolbox,
available online on a learning platform. On this platform,
teachers and learners will find custom-designed modules for IC
and Maritime English, containing learning materials, concrete
scripts for collaborative tasks, and assessment tools.
Intermar will thus promote innovative practices in foreign
language acquisition for maritime professionals in Europe in
the context of the initial or in-service training activities offered
to navy personnel and seafarers.

5. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In the past few years IC has proved to be a very productive field both in
terms of research and teaching. However there are still many aspects to be ex-
amined in detail, in particular those in the list given below.

1) The first aspect that needs to be studied in more detail is the as-
sessment of IC. Only with an assessment system can IC truly as-
pire to being part of curricula. In spite of some interesting
thoughts on this point, there are still no shared theories or prac-
tices on which competences to assess (IC syllabi) or on how to as-
sess the development of competences acquired during an IC
course, by using valid, effective, and reliable assessment tests.

52
2) Research on oral IC is only at the beginning, and, although it has
been integrated into many teaching practices, it has not created
many teaching tools, which would be very useful.
3) A highly promising field for IC is the one linked to specific audi-
ences who are interested, for example, in the management of plu-
rilingual information and in teaching subjects using languages.
4) It would also be useful to gather further experimental data on the
development of comprehension between related languages, espe-
cially on input processing and integration into the learner’s inter-
linguistic system.
5) The data on the development of comprehension in IC could also
be useful from the point of view of capitalizing on what has been
learned in one IC program in a subsequent course that includes
interproduction or also production.

Table 7
Main features of more disseminated IC projects

Project Target languages Target Website

name audi-
ence
ROA: cat, fra,
Babelweb ita, por, ron, spa Adults www.babel-web.eu

ROA: cat, fra,

Chainstories glg, ita, oci, por, Kids www.chainstories.eu
ron, spa
ROA: fra, ita,
CINCO por, ron, spa Adults www.projetocinco.eu

GEM: deu, swe

ROA: ita, fra,
por, spa www.eu-
EU&I Adults
SLA: bul intercomprehension.eu
Other: tur, ell

53
 ROA
www.eurocomprehension.e
EuroCom GEM Adults
u
SLA
ROA: cat, fra,
EuRom5 ita, por, spa Adults www.eurom5.com

ROA: cat, fra,

ita, oci, por, ron,
Euromania Kids www.euro-mania.eu
spa

ROA: cat, fra,

FontdelCat ita, por, ron, spa Adults ice.uab.cat/fontdelcat

ROA: fra, ita,

Galanet Adults www.galanet.eu
por, spa.
ROA: fra, ita,
por, ron, spa
http://logatome.eu/ice.htm
ICE GEM: deu, eng, Adults
nld

GEM: deu, nld,

http://www.hum.uit.no/a/s
eng, nob, dan,
IGLO Adults venonius/lingua/
swe, isl

GEM: eng, deu.

ROA: fra, por
www.intercomprehension.e
Intercom SLA: bul Adults
u
Other: ell

GEM: eng, nld,

deu, swe,
SLA: rus
Intermar Adults www.intermar.com.ax
BAT: lav, lit
ROA: ita, ron,
por, spa, fra

54
 http://www.unilat.org/DPE
Itinéraires ROA: fra, ita,
Kids L/Intercomprehension/Itine
Romans por, ron, spa.
raires_romans/
ROA:
Minerva cat, fra, ita, por, Adults
ron, spa,
ROA: ast, cat,
fra, ita, mfe, oci,
Miriadi Adults www.miriadi.net
por, ron, spa.
GEM: deu, eng

In Table 8 is presented a classification of target languages by linguistic

families of the projects in Table 7 and their codes according to ISO 639-3.15
From both tables it is possible to see the massive presence of Romance lan-
guage in this domain.

Table 8
Target languages of IC projects classified in linguistic families

Romance Germanic Languages Slavic Other

Languages (GEM) Languages
(ROA) (SLA)
Asturian: ast Danish: dan Bulgarian: bul Greek:
Catalan: cat Dutch (Nederlands): Russian: rus ell
French: fra ndl Turkish:
Galician: glg English: eng Balto-slavic tur
Italian: ita German: deu (BAT):
Occitan: oci Icelandic: isl Latvian: lav
Portoguese: por Norwegian Bokmål: nob Lithuanian: lit
Romanian: ron Swedish: swe
Spanish: spa
Mauritian creole:
mfe

15 Language code used by Ethnologue and Summer Institute of Linguistics.

55
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bach, S., Brunet, J. & Mastrelli, A. (2008). Quadrivio romanzo. Dall'italiano al fran-
cese, allo spagnolo, al portoghese. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.
Benucci, A. & Cortés Velásquez, D. (2012). Le pratiche dell’IC: una visione
d’insieme. In Degache, C. & Garbarino, S. (Eds.) Intercompréhension: compé-
tences plurielles, corpus, intégration. Université Stendhal Grenoble 3 (France).
http://ic2012.u-grenoble3.fr/OpenConf/papers/24.pdf
Bettoni, C. (2001). Imparare un’altra lingua. Bari: Laterza.
Berruto, G. (2004). Prima lezione di sociolinguistica. Bari: Laterza.
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (2009). Suggestions de recherches à mener pour entraîner la
perception orale d’une langue romane à d’autres. In Jamet, M.C. (Ed.) Orale e
intercomprensione tra lingue romanze. Ricerche e implicazioni didattiche (pp. 19-
32). Venezia: Cafoscarina editrice.
Blanche-Benveniste, C. & Valli, A. (1997). L'Intercompréhension: le cas des langues
romanes. Le français dans le monde, Recherches et applications. [Numéro spécial].
Janvier, 1997
Bonvino, E. (2010). Intercomprensione. Percorsi di apprendimento/ insegnamento
simultaneo di portoghese, spagnolo, catalano, italiano e francese. In Mezzadri,
M. (Ed.) Le lingue dell'educazione in un mondo senza frontiere (pp. 211-222). Pe-
rugia: Guerra Edizioni.
Bonvino, E. (2012). Lo sviluppo delle abilità di lettura nell’ottica
dell’intercomprensione. In Bonvino, E., Luzi, E. & Tamponi, A. (Eds.) (Far)
apprendere, usare e certificare una lingua straniera (pp. 139-152). Formello (RM):
Bonacci editore.
Bonvino, E., Caddéo S. & Escudé P. (2011). Euro-Forma: de la formation à la pra-
tique orale en intercomptéhension. In Capucho, F., Degache, Ch.; Meißner,
F.J. & Tost, M. (Eds.) Intercomprehension. Learning, teaching, research (pp. 386-
401). Tübingen: Narr.
Bonvino, E. & Caddéo, S. (2008). Intercompréhension à l’oral : où en est la re-
cherche ? In Capucho, F., Martins, A., Degache, C. & Tost, M. (Eds.), Dialo-
gos em intercompreensão (pp. 386-394). Lisbona: Universitade Católica Editora.

56
Bonvino, E., Fiorenza, E. & Pippa S. (2011). EuRom5, una metodologia per l'inter-
comprensione: strategie, aspetti linguistici e applicazioni pratiche. In De Carlo,
M. (Ed.) Intercomprensione e educazione al plurilinguismo (pp. 162-18). Porto
Sant’Elpidio: Wizarts Editore.
Bouvet, E. & Bréelle, D. (2004). Pistage informatisé des stratégies de lecture: une
étude de cas en contexte pédagogique. Apprentissage des langues et systèmes
d’information et de communication. ALSIC, VII (1), 85-106.
Bowles, M. A. (2010). The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research.
New York/London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Caddéo, S. & Jamet, M.C. (2013). L'intercompréhension: une autre approche dans
l'enseignement des langues. Paris: Hachette.
Candelier, M., Camilieri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., De Pietro, J. F., Lörenz, I.,
Meissner, F.-J., & Schröder-Sura, A. (2007). CARAP—Cadre de référence pour
les approches plurielles des langues et des cultures. Graz: Conseil de l’Europe.
Capucho, F. (2012). L’Intercompréhension–un nouvel atout dans le monde profes-
sionnel. In Degache, C. & Garbarino, S. (Eds.) Intercompréhension : compétences
plurielles, corpus, intégration. Université Stendhal Grenoble 3 (France),
http://ic2012.u-grenoble3.fr/OpenConf/papers/67.pdf
Capucho, F. (2005). EU&I: On the notion of intercomprehension. In Martins, A.
(Ed.) EU&I. European Awareness in intercomprehension (pp.11-18). Viseu: Uni-
versidade Catolica Portuguesa.
Cortés Velásquez, D. (2011). Aspetti metacognitivi e processuali della comprensione
di un testo audiovisivo in spagnolo da parte di italofoni. Redinter Intercom-
preensão, II, 203-226.
Cortés Velásquez, D. (2012). Dalla comprensione scritta alla comprensione orale
con EuRom5: una sperimentazione in Colombia. Redinter Intercompreensão, [At-
traverso le lingue. L'intercomprensione in ricordo di Claire Blanche-
Benveniste], III, 269-291.
Cortés Velásquez, D. (2013). Intercomprensione orale e metacognizione. Tesi di dotto-
rato in Linguistica e Didattica della lingua italiana a stranieri, XXV ciclo, Uni-
versità per Stranieri di Siena. Unpublished.
Coste, D. (2010). L’intercompréhension à la croisée des chemins? Synergies Europe,
5, 193–199.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

57
Dabène, L. (1975). L'enseignement de l'espagnol aux francophones : pour une di-
dactique des langues voisines. Langages, 39: 51-64.
De Carlo, M. (Ed.) (2011). Intercomprensione e educazione al plurilinguismo. Porto
Sant’Elpidio: Wizarts Editore.
Debyser F. (1970). La linguistique contrastive et les interférences. Langue française.
8, 31-61.
Degache, Ch. (2004). Interactions asynchrones et appropriations dans un environ-
nement d’apprentissage collaboratif des langues (Galanet). Repères & Applica-
tions, IV, 33-48.
Degache, Ch. & Garbarino, S. (Eds.) (2012). Actes du colloque IC 2012. Intercom-
préhension : compétences plurielles, corpus, intégration. Université Stendhal Gre-
noble 3 (France) http://ic2012.u-grenoble3.fr /index.php? pg=10&lg=fr
Doyé, P. (2005). Towards a methodology for the promotion of intercomprehension.
In Capucho, F. & Oliveira, A. (Eds.) Building bridges: European awareness & in-
tercomprehension, (pp. 23–26). Viseu: Universidade Católica Editora,
Escudé, P. & Janin, P. (2010). Le point sur l'intercompréhension, clé du plurilin-
guisme. Paris: Clé International.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Jamet, M.C. (2011). Parliamo di orale! Il suo posto nella didattica
dell’intercomprensione oggi e domani. In De Carlo, M. (Ed.) Intercomprensione e
educazione al plurilinguismo, (pp. 252-263), Porto Sant’Elpidio: Wizarts Editore.
Jamet, M.C. (2009). Orale e intercomprensione tra lingue romanze, Ricerche e implica-
zioni didattiche. Venezia: Cafoscarina editrice.
Jamet, M.C. (2007). À l’écoute du français. La compréhension de l’oral dans le cadre de
l’intercompréhension des langues romanes. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Klein, W. (1986). Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York:
Longman.
Martin, K. E. (2012). Les tests d’intercompréhension orale : portée et limites d’une
modalité quantitative. In Degache, C. & Garbarino, S. (Eds.). Intercompréhen-
sion : compétences plurielles, corpus, intégration. Université Stendhal Grenoble 3
(France). http://ic2012.u-grenoble3.fr /OpenConf /papers/64.pdf
Meissner, F.-J., Klein, H. G., & Stegmann, T. D. (2004). EuroComRom—Les sept
tamis: lire les langues romanes dès le départ. Shaker: Aachen.

58
Ollivier, Ch. (2011). Représentations de l’intercompréhension chez les spécialistes
du champ. Redinter- Intercompreensão, 1, 29-51.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., Kupper, L.
(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second lan-
guage. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 285-296.
Reboullet, A. (1983). La latinité : une idée à reconstruire. Le Français dans le monde,
179, 19-20.
Simone, R. (1997). Langues romanes de toute l’Europe, unissez vous! Le français
dans le monde, Recherches et applications, [Numéro spécial], 25-33.
Valdés, G. (2000). ‘‘Introduction’’ Spanish for Native Speakers. New York: Harcourt
College.
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listen-
ing comprehension research. Cambridge Journal: Language Teaching, 40, 191–
210.

59