Mutual intelligibility

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Mutual unintelligibility
)

Statue of the first Czechoslovak president Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (whose mother was Czech and father Slovak) with Czech flag on the left and Slovak flag on the right. There is a high level of mutual intelligibility between the closely related West Slavic languages Czech and Slovak (the Czech–Slovak languages).

In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort. It is sometimes used as an important criterion for distinguishing languages from dialects, although sociolinguistic factors are often also used.

Intelligibility between languages can be asymmetric, with speakers of one understanding more of the other than speakers of the other understanding the first. When it is relatively symmetric, it is characterized as "mutual". It exists in differing degrees among many related or geographically proximate languages of the world, often in the context of a dialect continuum.

Intelligibility

Factors

An individual's achievement of moderate proficiency or understanding in a language (called L2) other than their first language (L1) typically requires considerable time and effort through study and practical application if the two languages are not very closely related.[1] Advanced speakers of a second language typically aim for intelligibility, especially in situations where they work in their second language and the necessity of being understood is high.[1] However, many groups of languages are partly mutually intelligible, i.e. most speakers of one language find it relatively easy to achieve some degree of understanding in the related language(s). Often the two languages are

genetically related, and they are likely to be similar to each other in grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation
, or other features.

Intelligibility among languages can vary between individuals or groups within a language population according to their knowledge of various registers and vocabulary in their own language, their exposure to additional related languages, their interest in or familiarity with other cultures, the domain of discussion, psycho-cognitive traits, the mode of language used (written vs. oral), and other factors.

Linguistic distance is the name for the concept of calculating a measurement for how different languages are from one another. The higher the linguistic distance, the lower the mutual intelligibility.

Asymmetric intelligibility

Asymmetric intelligibility refers to two languages that are considered partially mutually intelligible, but where one group of speakers has more difficulty understanding the other language than the other way around. There can be various reasons for this. If, for example, one language is related to another but has simplified its grammar, the speakers of the original language may understand the simplified language, but less vice versa. For example,

Afrikaans than vice versa as a result of Afrikaans' simplified grammar.[2]

Among sign languages

Sign languages are not universal and are usually not mutually intelligible,[3] although there are also similarities among different sign languages. Sign languages are independent of spoken languages and follow their own paths of development. For example, British Sign Language (BSL) and American Sign Language (ASL) are quite different and mutually unintelligible, even though the hearing people of the United Kingdom and the United States share the same spoken language. The grammars of sign languages do not usually resemble those of spoken languages used in the same geographical area; in fact, in terms of syntax, ASL shares more with spoken Japanese than it does with English.[4]

As a criterion for identifying separate languages

Further information: § List of dialects or varieties sometimes considered separate languages, and § List of languages sometimes considered varieties

Some linguists use mutual intelligibility as a primary criterion for determining whether two speech varieties represent the same or different languages.[5][6] In a similar vein, some claim that mutual intelligibility is, ideally at least, the primary criterion separating languages from dialects.[7]

A primary challenge to these positions is that speakers of closely related languages can often communicate with each other effectively if they choose to do so. In the case of transparently cognate languages officially recognized as distinct such as Spanish and Italian, mutual intelligibility is in principle and in practice not binary (simply yes or no), but occurs in varying degrees, subject to numerous variables specific to individual speakers in the context of the communication. Classifications may also shift for reasons external to the languages themselves. As an example, in the case of a linear dialect continuum that shades gradually between varieties, where speakers near the center can understand the varieties at both ends with relative ease, but speakers at one end have difficulty understanding the speakers at the other end, the entire chain is often considered a single language. If the central varieties die out and only the varieties at both ends survive, they may then be reclassified as two languages, even though no actual language change has occurred during the time of the loss of the central varieties. In this case, too, however, while mutual intelligibility between speakers of the distant remnant languages may be greatly constrained, it is likely not at the zero level of completely unrelated languages.

In addition, political and social conventions often override considerations of mutual intelligibility in both scientific and non-scientific views. For example, the

prestige variety in Modern Standard Arabic. In contrast, there is often significant intelligibility between different Scandinavian languages, but as each of them has its own standard form, they are classified as separate languages.[8]

However, others have suggested that these objections are misguided, as they collapse different concepts of what constitutes a "language".[9]

To deal with the conflict in cases such as

prestige form
.

Within dialect continua

This paragraph is an excerpt from Dialect continuum.[edit]

A dialect continuum or dialect chain is a series of language varieties spoken across some geographical area such that neighboring varieties are mutually intelligible, but the differences accumulate over distance so that widely separated varieties may not be.[10] This is a typical occurrence with widely spread languages and language families around the world, when these languages did not spread recently. Some prominent examples include the Indo-Aryan languages across large parts of India, varieties of Arabic across north Africa and southwest Asia, the Turkic languages, the Chinese languages or dialects, and parts of the Romance, Germanic and Slavic families in Europe. Terms used in older literature include dialect area (Leonard Bloomfield)[11] and L-complex (Charles F. Hockett).[12]

Dialect continua typically occur in long-settled agrarian populations, as innovations spread from their various points of origin as waves. In this situation, hierarchical classifications of varieties are impractical. Instead, dialectologists map variation of various language features across a dialect continuum, drawing lines called isoglosses between areas that differ with respect to some feature.[13]

North Germanic

Main article: North Germanic languages § Mutual intelligibility

Northern Germanic languages spoken in Scandinavia form a

koiné language that evolved among the urban elite in Norwegian cities during the later years of the union. Additionally, Norwegian assimilated a considerable amount of Danish vocabulary as well as traditional Danish expressions.[2] As a consequence, spoken mutual intelligibility is not reciprocal.[2]

Romance

Because of the difficulty of imposing boundaries on a continuum, various counts of the Romance languages are given; in The Linguasphere register of the world's languages and speech communities David Dalby lists 23 based on mutual intelligibility:[14]

South Slavic

Main article: South Slavic languages

Torlakian) diverge more significantly from all four normative varieties. Their mutual intelligibility varies greatly, between the dialects themselves, with Shtokavian, and with other languages. For example, Torlakian which is considered a subdialect of Serbian Old Shtokavian by some, has significant mutual intelligibility with Macedonian and Bulgarian.[15]
All South Slavic languages in effect form a large dialect continuum of gradually mutually intelligible varieties depending on distance between the areas where they are spoken.

List of mutually intelligible languages

Romance

Main article: Romance languages

Germanic

Main article: Germanic languages

Slavic

Main article: Slavic languages

Indo-Aryan

Main article: Indo-Aryan languages

Turkic

Main article: Turkic languages

Austronesian

Main article: Austronesian languages

Niger–Congo

Main article: Niger–Congo languages

Other

List of dialects or varieties sometimes considered separate languages

See also: Language secessionism and Pluricentric language
  • Akan: Twi and Fante.[64]
  • Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic and Zakho Christian Neo-Aramaic are mutually intelligible, especially on the eastern edge (in Iran), Jewish and Christian NENA varieties spoken in the same town are not mutually intelligible.[66][67]
  • Catalan: Valencian – the standard forms are structurally the same language and share the vast majority of their vocabulary, and hence highly mutually intelligible. They are considered separate languages only for political reasons.[68]
  • Arabic
    .
  • mutually intelligible, despite the numerous lexical differences.[72] Certain linguistic sources also treat the two standards on equal standing as varieties of the same Malay language.[73] Malaysians tend to assert that Malaysian and Indonesian are merely different normative varieties of the same language, while Indonesians tend to treat them as separate, albeit closely related, languages.[74] However, vernacular or less formal varieties spoken between these two countries share limited intelligibility, evidenced by Malaysians having difficulties understanding Indonesian sinetron (soap opera) aired on their TV stations (which actually uses a colloquial offshoot heavily influenced by Betawi vernacular of Jakarta[75] rather than the formal standard acquired in academical contexts) and vice versa.[76]
  • Perso-Arabic script, while Tajik is written in Cyrillic script.[77]
  • Serbo-Croatian: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian – the national varieties are structurally the same language, all constituting normative varieties of the Shtokavian dialect, and hence mutually intelligible,[6][78] spoken and written (if the Latin alphabet is used).[79][80] For political reasons, they are sometimes considered distinct languages.[81] Shtokavian has its own set of subdialects, leading some linguists to consider the other dialects (Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Torlakian) as separate languages, closely related to Shtokavian Serbo-Croatian (rather than being Serbo-Croatian dialects).
  • Romanian: Moldovan – the standard forms are structurally the same language, and hence mutually intelligible. They are considered separate languages only for political reasons.[82] Moldovan does, however, have more foreign loanwords from Russian and Ukrainian due to historical East Slavic influence on the region but not to the extent where those would affect mutual intelligibility.
  • Tagalog: Filipino[83] – the national language of the Philippines, Filipino, is based almost entirely on the Luzon dialects of Tagalog.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Tweedie, Gregory; Johnson, Robert. "Listening instruction and patient safety: Exploring medical English as a lingua franca (MELF) for nursing education". Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  2. ^
    S2CID 18875358
    . Retrieved 19 May 2010.
  3. ^ "What is Sign Language?". Linguistic society. Archived from the original on 13 February 2018. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  4. ^ Nakamura, Karen. (1995). "About American Sign Language." Deaf Resource Library, Yale University. [1]
  5. OL 15295665W
    .
  6. ^
    OL 15270636W. CROSBI 475567. Archived
    (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
  7. ^ See e.g. P.H. Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, OUP 2007, p. 103.
  8. ISBN 978-0-521-59646-6
    .
  9. S2CID 233800051
    .
  10. ISBN 978-1-405-15296-9
    .
  11. ^ Bloomfield, Leonard (1935). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 51.
  12. ^ Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. pp. 324–325.
  13. ISBN 978-0-521-59646-6
    .
  14. ^ David Dalby, 1999/2000, The Linguasphere register of the world's languages and speech communities. Observatoire Linguistique, Linguasphere Press. Volume 2, p. 390-410 (zone 51). Oxford.[2] Archived 2014-08-27 at the Wayback Machine
  15. ISBN 9789546421135
    – via Google Books.
  16. ^ a b Voigt, Stefanie (2014). "Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages within the Romance language family" (PDF). p. 113.
  17. ^ Beswick, Jaine (2005). "Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities". Estudios de Sociolingüística. 6 (1): 39–64.
  18. ^ GAVILANES LASO, J. L. (1996) Algunas consideraciones sobre la inteligibilidad mutua hispano-portuguesa[full citation needed] In: Actas del Congreso Internacional Luso-Español de Lengua y Cultura en la Frontera, Cáceres, Universidad de Extremadura, 175–187.
  19. ^ "Comparação Português e Castelhano". www.omniglot.com.
  20. ^ "Algumas observações sobre a noção de língua portuguesa" (PDF).
  21. ^ Romanian language – Britannica Online Encyclopedia
  22. ISBN 978-90-272-2790-4
    .
  23. ISBN 978-3-8233-4715-6
    .
  24. ^ Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria: WPLC. WPLC, Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria. 1997. p. 66.
  25. ISBN 978-1-57090-160-7
    .
  26. ^ Bø, I (1976). "Ungdom og naboland : en undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabospråkforståelsen". Rogalandsforskning. 4.
  27. doi:10.1093/llc/fql036
    .
  28. ^ Kaufmann, Manuel (2006). "English in Scotland — a phonological approach". GRIN. p. 21. Archived from the original on 4 August 2020. Retrieved 5 April 2020.
  29. ISBN 978-1-85109-873-6
    .
  30. ^ Alexander M. Schenker. 1993. "Proto-Slavonic," The Slavonic Languages. (Routledge). Pp. 60–121. Pg. 60: "[The] distinction between dialect and language being blurred, there can be no unanimity on this issue in all instances..."
    C.F. Voegelin and F.M. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and Index of the World's Languages (Elsevier). Pg. 311, "In terms of immediate mutual intelligibility, the East Slavic zone is a single language."
    Bernard Comrie. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union (Cambridge). Pg. 145–146: "The three East Slavonic languages are very close to one another, with very high rates of mutual intelligibility...The separation of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian as distinct languages is relatively recent...Many Ukrainians in fact speak a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian, finding it difficult to keep the two languages apart...
  31. ^ Language profile Macedonian Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine, UCLA International Institute
  32. ^
    ISBN 978-0-8204-7328-4
    .
  33. ISBN 978-0-08-044299-0
    .
  34. ^ Macedonian language Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine on UCLA
  35. ISBN 978-0-8204-3365-3
    .
  36. ^ Łabowicz, Ludmiła. "Gdzie "sicz", a gdzie "porohy"?! (ст. 15), Part II". Archived from the original on 1 May 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
  37. ^ "UCLA Language Materials Project: Language Profile". Lmp.ucla.edu. Archived from the original on 9 November 2011. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
  38. COBISS 171014403. Archived
    from the original on 10 January 2024. Retrieved 21 January 2024. p. 174: In the Slavic area, there is one instance of a significant asymmetric intelligibility: Slovenians understand Croats better (79.4%) than Croats understand Slovenians (43.7%).
  39. ^ "The Linguistic Innovation Emerging From Rohingya Refugees." by Christine Ro. Forbes. 13 September 2019. [3]
  40. ^ "How Konkani Won the Battle for 'Languagehood'". www.meertens.knaw.nl. Retrieved 1 June 2021.
  41. UCLA International Institute, Center for World Languages. February 2007. Archived from the original
    on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 26 April 2007.
  42. ^ a b G (2012). "çuvaşlar: The Internal Classification & Migration of Turkic Languages".
  43. ^ Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya (2004). Ukrayna'daki Urum Türkleri ve Folkloru. Milli Folklor, 2004, Yıl. 16, S. 16, s. 59
  44. ISBN 978-0-87750-081-0
    .
  45. ^ ceeres.uchicago.edu
  46. ^ "Uzbek – the Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies".
  47. ^ "Morpho-syntax of mutual intelligibility in the Turkic languages of Central Asia - Surrey Morphology Group". www.smg.surrey.ac.uk. Retrieved 15 December 2022.
  48. ISBN 978-1-920942-85-4
    .
  49. ^ Tokelauan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed access icon
  50. ^ Tuvaluan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed access icon
  51. ^ Orukpe, Abel (3 November 2016). "The Linguistic Characteristic Of Esan Language: Towards Its Empowerment and Development". Retrieved 7 July 2021.
  52. ^ Kinyarwanda at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed access icon
  53. ^ a b c Angogo, Rachel. "LANGUAGE AND POLITICS IN SOUTH AFRICA". Studies in African Linguistics Volume 9, Number 2. elanguage.net. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
  54. ISBN 978-3-96110-275-4
    .
  55. ^ Poletto, Robert E. (1998). Topics in RuNyankore Phonology. Ohio State University.
  56. ^ Katsura, M. (1973). "Phonemes of the Alu Dialect of Akha". Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.3. 3 (3): 35–54.
  57. doi:10.1080/02549948.1977.11745054
    . Retrieved 15 February 2011. p. 351.
  58. ISBN 978-0-415-25003-0
    .
  59. ISBN 978-0-415-91977-7
    .
  60. ISBN 9780313244841
    .
  61. ^ Xibe at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed access icon
  62. ^ "Ausbau and Abstand languages". ccat.sas.upenn.edu.
  63. ^
    S2CID 151878153
    .
  64. ^ Chuka Obiorah (12 December 2013). "Twi Language – Akan's Popular Dialect". Buzz Ghana. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  65. ISBN 978-3-96110-081-1
    .
  66. ISBN 978-3-11-220924-0
    .
  67. ISBN 978-3-447-04557-5
    .
  68. ^ "Dictamen de l'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua sobre els principis i criteris per a la defensa de la denominació i l'entitat del valencià" Archived 2008-12-17 at the Wayback Machine. Report from Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua about denomination and identity of Valencian.
  69. S2CID 163197752
    .
  70. ISBN 978-0-521-77939-5
    .
  71. ^ "Majlis Bahasa Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Malaysia (MABBIM)" [Malaysian language]. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 29 July 2022. Retrieved 6 February 2023.
  72. ISBN 9781136755095
    .
  73. ^ An example of equal treatment of Malaysian and Indonesian: the Pusat Rujukan Persuratan Melayu database from the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka has a "Istilah MABBIM" section dedicated to documenting Malaysian, Indonesian and Bruneian official terminologies: see example
  74. ^ "Who is Malay?". July 2005. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016.
  75. ^ Bowden, John. Towards an account of information structure in Colloquial Jakarta Indonesian. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, 10 April 2014. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. p. 194.
  76. ^ Sugiharto, Setiono (25 October 2008). "Indonesian-Malay mutual intelligibility?". Retrieved 6 December 2019.(registration required)
  77. ^ "Dari/Persian/Tajik languages" (PDF).
  78. doi:10.5167/uzh-215815
    . Retrieved 8 June 2022. Serben, Kroaten, Bosnier und Montenegriner immer noch auf ihren jeweiligen Nationalsprachen unterhalten und problemlos verständigen. Nur schon diese Tatsache zeigt, dass es sich immer noch um eine polyzentrische Sprache mit verschiedenen Varietäten handelt.
  79. S2CID 150383965
    . lexical differences between the ethnic variants are extremely limited, even when compared with those between closely related Slavic languages (such as standard Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian), and grammatical differences are even less pronounced. More importantly, complete understanding between the ethnic variants of the standard language makes translation and second language teaching impossible
  80. SSRN 3434516. CROSBI 430499. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. (ÖNB)
    .
  81. ISBN 978-0-19-925815-4
    .
  82. ^ "Moldovan (limba moldovenească / лимба молдовеняскэ)".
  83. ^ "Santiago Villafania | Pangasinan Poet". archive.ph. 6 December 2012. Archived from the original on 6 December 2012. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

Further reading

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutual_intelligibility&oldid=1215575788"