Interlinguistic Variation and Similarity in Foreigner Talk

Illustrated with Respect to English-Speaking and German-Speaking Contexts
  • Elsa Lattey
Part of the Topics in Language and Linguistics book series (TLLI)


Foreigner talk (FT), a speech variety often discussed together with broken language, pidginization, or simplification, is seen as a sociolinguistic phenomenon involving speech adjustment in the presence of foreign speakers. Much of the research to date has been on English foreigner talk, for which syntactic as well as functional analyses have been put forward (e.g., Clyne, 1981; Ferguson, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1981; Freed, 1979, 1981a, 1981b; Hatch, Schapira, Gough, 1978). But other languages have been studied as well (e.g., Czech by Henzl, 1974, 1979; Dutch by Snow, van Eeden, Muysken, 1981; French by Valdman, 1981; German by Hinnenkamp, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985; Meisel, 1977, 1980; and Roche, 1982; Tok Masta by Muehlhaeusler, 1981; Turkish by Hinnenkamp, 1982). Gass and Varonis (1985) discuss native-speaker reaction to FT, and Gass and Madden (1985) consider the effects of FT on language learning.


Native Speaker Language Acquisition Communicative Interaction German Data Nonnative Speaker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Canale, M., Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. Clyne, M. (1981). ‘Second generation’ foreigner talk in Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 69–80.Google Scholar
  3. Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 141–150 ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ferguson, C. A. (1975). Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17, 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. Ferguson, C. A. (1977). Simplified registers, broken language, and Gastarbeiterdeutsch. In C. Molony, H. Zobl, W. Stoelting (Eds.), German in contact with other languages (pp. 25–39 ). Kronberg/Ts.: Scriptor Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Ferguson, C. A. (1981). ‘Foreigner talk’ as the name of a simplified register. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 9–18.Google Scholar
  7. Ferguson, C. A., DeBose, C. E. (1977). Simplified registers, broken language, and pidginization. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Pidgin and creole linguistics (pp. 99–125 ). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Freed, B. ( 1979, Feb.-Mar.). Foreigner talk and conversational interaction. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, Boston.Google Scholar
  9. Freed, B. (1981a). Talking to foreigners versus talking to children. In R. Scarcella S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition (pp. 19–27 ).Google Scholar
  10. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Freed, B. (1981b). Foreigner talk, baby talk, native talk. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 19–39.Google Scholar
  11. Gass, S. M., Madden, C. G. (Eds.). (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  12. Gass, S. M., Varonis, E. M. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guiora, A. (1965). On clinical diagnosis and prediction. Psychological Reports, 17, 779–784. Hatch, E., Shapira, R., Gough, J. (1978). Foreigner talk discourse. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 39–60.Google Scholar
  14. Henzl, V. M. (1974). Linguistic register of foreign language instruction. Language Learning, 23, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henzl, V. M. (1979). Foreign talk in the classroom. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 159167.Google Scholar
  16. Heyder, U. (1986). Untersuchungen zur sprachlichen Simplifikation im Englischen. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  17. Hinnenkamp, V. (1981). “Tuerkish Mann, Du?”-Sprechverhalten von Deutschen gegenueber Gastarbeitern. In K. G. Bausch (Ed.), Mehrsprachigkeit in der Stadtregion. Jahrbuch des Instituts fuer Deutsche Sprache (pp. 171–193 ). Duesseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
  18. Hinnenkamp, V. (1982). Foreigner Talk und Tarzanisch. Hamburg: Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Hinnenkamp, V. (1984). “Infantilisierung” oder “funktionale Anpassung”?-Fragen zum “Foreigner Talk” der Deutschen gegenueber “Gastarbeitern”. In W. Kuehlwein (Ed.), Sprache, Kultur und Gesellschaft. Kongressberichte der 14. Jahrestagung der GAL (pp. 51–52 ). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Hinnenkamp, V. (1985). Zwangskommunikative Interaktion zwischen Gastarbeitern und deutscher Behoerde. In J. Rehbein (Ed.), Interkulturelle Kommunikation (pp. 276–298 ). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Keim, I. (1978). Gastarbeiterdeutsch. Tübingen: TBL Verlag Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  22. Lattey, E. (1980). Grammatical systems across languages. A Study of participation in English, German and Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  23. Lattey, E. (1981). Foreigner talk in the U.S.A. and Germany: Contrast and comparison. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages Linguistics. (ED 221 064 )Google Scholar
  24. Lattey, E. (1985). From sign to text and from text to understanding. In Y. Tobin (Ed.) (in press).Google Scholar
  25. From sign to text: A semiotic view of communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Lattey, E. (1986). Sprachen im Kontakt. In H. Bausinger (Ed.), Auslaender-Inlaender (pp. 111–128 ). Tübingen: Tübinger Vereinigung fuer Volkskunde, e.V.Google Scholar
  27. Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5 (2), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meisel, J. M. (1977). Linguistic simplification: A study of immigrant workers’ speech and foreigner talk. In S. P. Corder E. Roulet (Eds.), The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins and their relation to second language pedagogy (pp. 88–113 ). Geneva: Librarie Droz.Google Scholar
  29. Meisel, J. M. (1980). Linguistic simplification. In S. W. Felix (Ed.), Second-language development. Trends and issues (pp. 57–79 ). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  30. Muehlhaeusler, P. (1981). Foreigner talk: Tok masta in New Guinea. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 93–113.Google Scholar
  31. Roche, J. (1982). Merkmale des foreigner talk im Deutschen. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Munich, 1982.Google Scholar
  32. Snow, C. E., van Eeden, R., Muysken, P. (1981). The interactional origins of foreigner talk: Municipal employees and foreign workers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 81–91.Google Scholar
  33. Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Valdman, A. (1981). Sociolinguistic aspects of foreigner talk. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 41–52.Google Scholar
  35. Varonis, E. M. Gass, S. (1982). The comprehensibility of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4 (2), 114–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zubin, D. (1978). Semantic substance and value relations: A grammatical analysis of case morphology in modern standard German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elsa Lattey
    • 1
  1. 1.Seminar fuer Englische PhilologieUniversity of TübingenTübingenFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations