Mutual intelligibility
Closeness of linguistic varieties

Statue of Tomáš Masaryk
Statue of the first Czechoslovak president, Tomáš Masaryk, with the Czech flag on the left and the Slovak flag on the right. There is significant mutual intelligibility between the Czech and Slovak languages.

In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between different but related language varieties in which speakers of the different varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort. Mutual intelligibility is sometimes used to distinguish languages from dialects, although sociolinguistic factors are often also used.

Intelligibility between varieties can be asymmetric; that is, speakers of one variety may be able to better understand another than vice versa. An example of this is the case between Afrikaans and Dutch. It is generally easier for Dutch speakers to understand Afrikaans than for Afrikaans speakers to understand Dutch. (See Afrikaans § Mutual intelligibility with Dutch).

In a dialect continuum, neighboring varieties are mutually intelligible, but differences mount with distance, so that more widely separated varieties may not be mutually intelligible. Intelligibility can be partial, as is the case with Azerbaijani and Turkish, or significant, as is the case with Bulgarian and Macedonian. However, sign languages, such as American and British Sign Language, usually do not exhibit mutual intelligibility with each other.

Types

Asymmetric intelligibility

Asymmetric intelligibility refers to two languages that are considered partially mutually intelligible, but for various reasons, one group of speakers has more difficulty understanding the other language than the other way around. For example, if one language is related to another but has simplified its grammar, the speakers of the original language may understand the simplified language, but not vice versa. To illustrate, Dutch speakers tend to find it easier to understand Afrikaans as a result of Afrikaans's simplified grammar.[1]

Among sign languages

Sign languages are not universal and usually not mutually intelligible,[2] although there are also similarities among different sign languages. Sign languages are independent of spoken languages and follow their own linguistic development. For example, British Sign Language and American Sign Language (ASL) are quite different linguistically and mutually unintelligible, even though the non-hard-of-hearing people of the United Kingdom and the United States share the same spoken language. The grammar of sign languages does not usually resemble that of the spoken languages used in the same geographical area. To illustrate, in terms of syntax, ASL shares more in common with spoken Japanese than with English.[3]

As a criterion for distinguishing languages

Almost all linguists use mutual intelligibility as the primary linguistic criterion for determining whether two speech varieties represent the same or different languages.[4][5][6]

A primary challenge to this position 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 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, the central varieties may become extinct, leaving only the varieties at both ends. Consequently, these end varieties may be reclassified as two languages, even though no significant linguistic change has occurred within the two extremes during the extinction of the central varieties.

Furthermore, political and social conventions often override considerations of mutual intelligibility. For example, the varieties of Chinese are often considered a single language, even though there is usually no mutual intelligibility between geographically separated varieties. This is similarly the case among the varieties of Arabic, which also share a single prestige variety in Modern Standard Arabic. In contrast, there is often significant intelligibility between different North Germanic languages. However, because there are various standard forms of the North Germanic languages, they are classified as separate languages.[7]


Within dialect continua

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.[8] 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 varieties of Chinese, and parts of the Romance, Germanic and Slavic families in Europe. Terms used in older literature include dialect area (Leonard Bloomfield)[9] and L-complex (Charles F. Hockett).[10]

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.[11]

North Germanic

Northern Germanic languages spoken in Scandinavia form a dialect continuum where the two furthermost dialects have almost no mutual intelligibility. As such, spoken Danish and Swedish normally have low mutual intelligibility,[1] but Swedes in the Öresund region (including Malmö and Helsingborg), across the strait from the Danish capital Copenhagen, understand Danish somewhat better, largely due to the proximity of the region to Danish-speaking areas. While Norway was under Danish rule, the Bokmål written standard of Norwegian developed from Dano-Norwegian, 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.[1] As a consequence, spoken mutual intelligibility is not reciprocal.[1]

Romance

Because of the difficulty of imposing boundaries on a continuum, various counts of the Romance languages are given. For example, in The Linguasphere register of the world's languages and speech communities, David Dalby lists 23 languages based on mutual intelligibility:[12]

South Slavic

The non-standard vernacular dialects of Serbo-Croatian (Kajkavian, Chakavian and Torlakian) diverge more significantly from all four normative varieties of Serbo-Croatian. Their mutual intelligibility varies greatly between the dialects themselves, with the standard Shtokavian dialect, and with other languages. For example, Torlakian, which is considered a subdialect of Serbian Old Shtokavian, has significant mutual intelligibility with Macedonian and Bulgarian.[13]

List of mutually intelligible languages

Afroasiatic

Atlantic–Congo

Austronesian

Indo-European

Germanic

Romance

Slavic

Other subdivisions

Sino-Tibetan

Turkic

Uralic

Other

List of dialects or varieties sometimes considered separate languages

  • 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.[51]
  • Hindustani: Hindi and Urdu[52]
  • Malay: Indonesian (the standard regulated by Indonesia),[53] Brunei[54] and Malaysian (the standard used in Malaysia and Singapore). Both varieties are based on the same material basis and hence are generally mutually intelligible, despite the numerous lexical differences.[55] Certain linguistic sources also treat the two standards on equal standing as varieties of the same Malay language.[56] 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[57] rather than the formal standard acquired in academical contexts) and vice versa.[58]
  • Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA): NENA is a dialect continuum, with some dialects being mutually intelligible and others not.[59] While Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic and Zakho Christian Neo-Aramaic are mutually intelligible, especially on the eastern edge of the continuum (in Iran), Jewish and Christian NENA varieties spoken in the same town are not mutually intelligible.[60][61]
  • Persian: Iranian Persian (natively simply known as Persian), Dari and Tajik – Persian and Dari are written in Perso-Arabic script, while Tajik is written in Cyrillic script.[62]
  • 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,[5][63] spoken and written (if the Latin alphabet is used).[64][65] For political reasons, they are sometimes considered distinct languages.[66]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Gooskens, Charlotte (2007). "The Contribution of Linguistic Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages" (PDF). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 28 (6): 445. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.414.7645. doi:10.2167/jmmd511.0. S2CID 18875358. Retrieved 19 May 2010.
  2. ^ "What is Sign Language?". Linguistic society. Archived from the original on 13 February 2018. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  3. ^ Nakamura, Karen. (1995). "About American Sign Language." Deaf Resource Library, Yale University. [1]
  4. ^ Gröschel, Bernhard (2009). Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik: mit einer Bibliographie zum postjugoslavischen Sprachenstreit [Serbo-Croatian Between Linguistics and Politics: With a Bibliography of the Post-Yugoslav Language Dispute]. Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics ; vol 34 (in German). Munich: Lincom Europa. pp. 132–136. ISBN 978-3-929075-79-3. LCCN 2009473660. OCLC 428012015. OL 15295665W.
  5. ^ a b Kordić, Snježana (2010). Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (PDF). Rotulus Universitas (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Durieux. pp. 101–108. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3467646. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL 15270636W. CROSBI 475567. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
  6. ^ See e.g. P.H. Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, OUP 2007, p. 103.
  7. ^ Chambers, J.K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-0-521-59646-6.
  8. ^ Crystal, David (2006). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.). Blackwell. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-405-15296-9.
  9. ^ Bloomfield, Leonard (1935). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 51.
  10. ^ Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. pp. 324–325.
  11. ^ Chambers, J.K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 13–19, 89–91. ISBN 978-0-521-59646-6.
  12. ^ 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
  13. ^ Радева, Василка (15 July 2018). Българският език през ХХ век. Pensoft Publishers. ISBN 9789546421135 – via Google Books.
  14. ^ a b Čéplö, Slavomír; Bátora, Ján; Benkato, Adam; Milička, Jiří; Pereira, Christophe; Zemánek, Petr (1 January 2016). "Mutual intelligibility of spoken Maltese, Libyan Arabic, and Tunisian Arabic functionally tested: A pilot study". Folia Linguistica. 50 (2). doi:10.1515/flin-2016-0021. ISSN 0165-4004. S2CID 151878153.
  15. ^ Kinyarwanda at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed access icon
  16. ^ Hyman, Larry (15 September 2020). "In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga". Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar (1st ed.). Berlin: Language Science Press. pp. 253–276. ISBN 978-3-96110-275-4.
  17. ^ Poletto, Robert E. (1998). Topics in RuNyankore Phonology. Ohio State University.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ Bellwood, Peter; Fox, James J.; Tryon, Darrell, eds. (2006). The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Canberra: ANU Press. doi:10.22459/a.09.2006. ISBN 978-1-920942-85-4.
  20. ^ Tokelauan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed access icon
  21. ^ Tuvaluan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed access icon
  22. ^ Bø, I (1976). "Ungdom og naboland : en undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabospråkforståelsen". Rogalandsforskning. 4.
  23. ^ Gooskens, C.; Van Bezooijen, R. (2006). "Mutual Comprehensibility of Written Afrikaans and Dutch: Symmetrical or Asymmetrical?" (PDF). Literary and Linguistic Computing. 21 (4): 543–557. doi:10.1093/llc/fql036.
  24. ^ Avrum Ehrlich, Mark (2009). Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: origins, experience and culture, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 192. ISBN 978-1-85109-873-6.
  25. ^ Beswick, Jaine (2005). "Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities". Estudios de Sociolingüística. 6 (1): 39–64.
  26. ^ Romanian language – Britannica Online Encyclopedia
  27. ^ a b Voigt, Stefanie (2014). "Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages within the Romance language family" (PDF). p. 113.
  28. ^ Tomić, Olga Mišeska (2004). Balkan Syntax and Semantics. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 461. ISBN 978-90-272-2790-4.
  29. ^ Faingold, Eduardo D. (1996). Child Language, Creolization, and Historical Change: Spanish in Contact with Portuguese. Gunter Narr Verlag. p. 110. ISBN 978-3-8233-4715-6.
  30. ^ Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria: WPLC. WPLC, Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria. 1997. p. 66.
  31. ^ Ben-Ur, Aviva; Levy, Louis Nissim (2001). A Ladino Legacy: The Judeo-Spanish Collection of Louis N. Levy. Alexander Books. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-57090-160-7.
  32. ^ Łabowicz, Ludmiła. "Gdzie "sicz", a gdzie "porohy"?! (ст. 15), Part II". Archived from the original on 1 May 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
  33. ^ 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...
  34. ^ a b Trudgill, Peter (2004). "Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe". In Duszak, Anna; Okulska, Urszula (eds.). Speaking from the Margin: Global English from a European Perspective. Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 11. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-0-8204-7328-4.
  35. ^ Language profile Macedonian Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine, UCLA International Institute
  36. ^ Macedonian language Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine on UCLA
  37. ^ Brown, E. K.; Asher, R. E.; Simpson, J. M. Y. (2006). Encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Elsevier. p. 647. ISBN 978-0-08-044299-0.
  38. ^ Kevin Hannan (1996). Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia. Peter Lang. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-8204-3365-3.
  39. ^ Kordić, Snježana (2024). "Ideology Against Language: The Current Situation in South Slavic Countries" (PDF). In Nomachi, Motoki; Kamusella, Tomasz (eds.). Languages and Nationalism Instead of Empires. Routledge Histories of Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge. pp. 167–179. doi:10.4324/9781003034025-11. ISBN 978-0-367-47191-0. OCLC 1390118985. S2CID 259576119. SSRN 4680766. COBISS.SR 125229577. 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%).
  40. ^ Christina Bratt Paulston (1988). International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 110. ISBN 9780313244841.
  41. ^ "How Konkani Won the Battle for 'Languagehood'". www.meertens.knaw.nl. Retrieved 1 June 2021.
  42. ^ Katsura, M. (1973). "Phonemes of the Alu Dialect of Akha". Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.3. 3 (3): 35–54.
  43. ^ Rimsky-Korsakoff Dyer, Svetlana (1977). "Soviet Dungan nationalism: a few comments on their origin and language". Monumenta Serica. 33: 349–362. doi:10.1080/02549948.1977.11745054. Retrieved 15 February 2011. p. 351.
  44. ^ Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya (2004). Ukrayna'daki Urum Türkleri ve Folkloru. Milli Folklor, 2004, Yıl. 16, S. 16, s. 59
  45. ^ Sinor, Denis (1969). Inner Asia. History-Civilization-Languages. A syllabus. Bloomington. pp. 71–96. ISBN 978-0-87750-081-0.
  46. ^ "Uzbek – the Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies".
  47. ^ Katzner, Kenneth (2002). The languages of the world. Routledge. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-415-25003-0.
  48. ^ Taagepera, Rein (1999). The Finno-Ugric republics and the Russian state. Routledge. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-415-91977-7.
  49. ^ Xibe at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed access icon
  50. ^ "Ausbau and Abstand languages". ccat.sas.upenn.edu.
  51. ^ "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.
  52. ^ Gumperz, John J. (February 1957). "Language Problems in the Rural Development of North India". The Journal of Asian Studies. 16 (2): 251–259. doi:10.2307/2941382. JSTOR 2941382. S2CID 163197752.
  53. ^ Swan, Michael (2001). Learner English: a teacher's guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge University Press. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-521-77939-5.
  54. ^ "Majlis Bahasa Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Malaysia (MABBIM)" [Malaysian language]. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 29 July 2022. Retrieved 6 February 2023.
  55. ^ Adelaar, K. Alexander; Himmelmann, Nikolaus (7 March 2013). The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. Routledge. ISBN 9781136755095.
  56. ^ 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
  57. ^ 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.
  58. ^ Sugiharto, Setiono (25 October 2008). "Indonesian-Malay mutual intelligibility?". Retrieved 6 December 2019.(registration required)
  59. ^ Gutman, Ariel (2018). Attributive constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Language Science Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-3-96110-081-1.
  60. ^ Hauenschild, Ingeborg; Kellner-Heinkele, Barbara; Kappler, Matthias (2020). Eine hundertblättrige Tulpe - Bir ṣadbarg lāla: Festgabe für Claus Schönig (in German). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. p. 361. ISBN 978-3-11-220924-0.
  61. ^ Sabar, Yona (2002). A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary: Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, Northwestern Iraq : Based on Old and New Manuscripts, Oral and Written Bible Translations, Folkloric Texts, and Diverse Spoken Registers, with an Introduction to Grammar and Semantics, and an Index of Talmudic Words which Have Reflexes in Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 4. ISBN 978-3-447-04557-5.
  62. ^ "Dari/Persian/Tajik languages" (PDF).
  63. ^ Mader Skender, Mia (2022). "Schlussbemerkung" [Summary]. Die kroatische Standardsprache auf dem Weg zur Ausbausprache [The Croatian standard language on the way to ausbau language] (PDF) (Dissertation). UZH Dissertations (in German). Zurich: University of Zurich, Faculty of Arts, Institute of Slavonic Studies. pp. 196–197. 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.
  64. ^ Šipka, Danko (2019). Lexical layers of identity: words, meaning, and culture in the Slavic languages. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 166. doi:10.1017/9781108685795. ISBN 978-953-313-086-6. LCCN 2018048005. OCLC 1061308790. 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
  65. ^ Kordić, Snježana (2004). "Pro und kontra: "Serbokroatisch" heute" [Pro and contra: "Serbo-Croatian" nowadays] (PDF). In Krause, Marion; Sappok, Christian (eds.). Slavistische Linguistik 2002: Referate des XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Bochum 10.-12. September 2002 (PDF). Slavistishe Beiträge ; vol. 434 (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. pp. 110–114. ISBN 978-3-87690-885-4. OCLC 56198470. SSRN 3434516. CROSBI 430499. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. (ÖNB).
  66. ^ Greenberg, Robert David (2004). Language and identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its disintegration. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-19-925815-4.

Further reading

  • Casad, Eugene H. (1974). Dialect intelligibility testing. Summer Institute of Linguistics. ISBN 978-0-88312-040-8.
  • Gooskens, Charlotte (2013). "Experimental methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties" (PDF). In Bayley, Robert; Cameron, Richard; Lucas, Ceil (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press. pp. 195–213. ISBN 978-0-19-974408-4.
  • Gooskens, Charlotte; van Heuven, Vincent J.; Golubović, Jelena; Schüppert, Anja; Swarte, Femke; Voigt, Stefanie (2017). "Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe" (PDF). International Journal of Multilingualism. 15 (2): 169–193. doi:10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185. S2CID 54519054.
  • Grimes, Joseph E. (1974). "Dialects as Optimal Communication Networks". Language. 50 (2): 260–269. doi:10.2307/412437. JSTOR 412437.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutual_intelligibility&oldid=1251507554"