Open Access

The annual microcensus provides Germany’s most important official statistics. Unlike a census it does not cover the whole population, but a representative 1%-sample of it. In 2017, the German microcensus asked a question on the language of the population, i.e. ‘Which language is mainly spoken in your household?’ Unfortunately, the question, its design and its position within the whole microcensus’ questionnaire feature several shortcomings. The main shortcoming is that multilingual repertoires cannot be captured by it. Recommendations for the improvement of the microcensus’ language question: first and foremost the question (i.e. its wording, design, and answer options) should make it possible to count multilingual repertoires.

With recourse to a broader understanding of the concept of translation, the transfer of source texts in one variety into another variety of the same language can also be called translation. This paper focuses on the target language – or rather – the target variety “easy-to-read language”, which is meant to make texts comprehensible for people with communication limitations. Considering its origins in the disability rights movement, the aim is to inform affected persons about their rights and democratic processes, i.e. to translate especially legal texts into the so-called easy-to-read language. Although there is a whole range of rules and guidelines for formulating in easy-to-read language, ”none offers a sufficient approach for translation into easy-to-read language“ (Bredel & Maaß, 2016a, p. 109). Standardization of the variety is also still a long way off. On the one hand, the contribution takes stock of legal regulations in easy-to-read language. On the other hand, four versions of the Federal Participation Law in easy-to-read language are analysed with regard to their external features and the constructions used to explain technical terminology. The analysis shows that legal texts in easy-to-read language are (still) quite limited in number and are also difficult to find. Concerning the second part, the constructions used exhibit a great structural variance, both intra- and intertextually. It is therefore questionable whether the addressees can access the texts independently. Also, it is still necessary to make the rules, the formulations of the rules and the implementations clearer so that the translations fulfil their function.

EFNIL, the European Federation of National Institutions for Language, promotes the standard languages and the linguistic diversity of the European countries as an essential characteristic of their cultural diversity and wealth. The 17th annual conference of EFNIL in Tallinn dealt with the relation between language and economy. • Language politics often have economic intentions, the language use of the individual is embedded in economic conditions, languages seem to differ in their economic value. In recent years, economists and sociolinguists have developed models of describing these interdependencies. • The interaction in multilingual settings needs professional handling. There are traditional instances such as language teaching or translation and new professional fields of the digital age such as multilingual databases. Lots of economic needs and opportunities appear in this field. • Digitization and societal diversity are two elements leading to more successful interaction, assisted by the use of automatic everyday translation, the development of plain language etc. This volume presents an extensive overview of the interplay of language and economy.

Prediction is a central mechanism in the human language processing architecture. The psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic literature has seen a lively debate about what form prediction may take and what status it has for language processing in the human mind and brain. While predictions are a ubiquitous finding, the implications of these results for models of language processing differ. For instance, eyetracking data suggest that predictions may rely on sublexical orthographic information in natural reading, while electrophysiological data provide mixed evidence for form-based predictions during reading. Other research has revealed that humans rapidly adapt to text specifics and that their predictive capacity varies, broadly speaking, in accordance with inter- and intra-individual language proficiency, which cuts across the speaker groups (e.g. L1 vs. L2 speakers, skilled vs. untrained readers) traditionally used for experimental contrasts. There is therefore evidence that the kind and strength of linguistic predictions depend on (at least) three sources of variability in language processing: speaker, text genre and experimental method. The aim of this Research Topic is to develop a better understanding of prediction in light of the three sources of variability in language processing, by providing an overview of state-of-the art research on predictive language processing and by bringing together research from various disciplines. First, intra-and inter-individual differences and their influence on predictive processes remain underrepresented in experimental research on predictive processing. How do language users differ in their predictive abilities and strategies, and how are these differences shaped by e.g. biological, social and cultural factors? Second, while language users experience great stylistic diversity in their daily language exposure and use, the majority of language processing research still focuses on a very constrained register of well-controlled sentences composed in the standard language. How are predictions shaped by extra- and meta-linguistic context, such as register/genre or accent/speaker identity, and how may this influence the processing of experimental items in another language or text variety? Third, the Research Topic invites contributions that make use of a multi-method approach, such as combined behavioral and electrophysiological measures or experimental methods combined with measures extracted from corpus data. What opportunities and challenges do we face when integrating multiple approaches to examine linguistic, experimental and individual differences in human predictive capacity? We welcome contributions from all areas of empirical psycho- and neurolinguistics, but contributions must explicitly address variability and variation in language and language processing. Relevant topics include individual differences and the impact of genre, modality, register and language variety. Contributions that go beyond single word and single sentence paradigms are especially desirable. Experimental, corpus-based, meta-analytic and review papers, as well as theoretical/opinion pieces are welcome; however, papers of the latter type should support their arguments with substantial empirical evidence from the literature. Particularly desirable are contributions which combine topics and/or methods, such as the impact of an individual's native dialect on processing of constructions that show variability in the standard language (e.g. choice of auxiliary, agreement of mass nouns, etc.) or experimental methods combined with measures extracted from corpus data such as information-theoretic surprisal.

In recent years, the availability of large annotated and searchable corpora, together with a new interest in the empirical foundation and validation of linguistic theory and description, has sparked a surge of novel and interesting work using corpus-based methods to study the grammar of natural languages. However, a look at relevant current research on the grammar of the Germanic, Romance, and Slavic languages reveals a variety of different theoretical approaches and empirical foci, which can be traced back to different philological and linguistic traditions. Still, this current state of affairs should not be seen as an obstacle but as an ideal basis for a fruitful exchange of ideas between different research paradigms.