fbpx
Wikipedia

Mutual intelligibility

April 28, 2023

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 used as an important criterion for distinguishing languages from dialects, although sociolinguistic factors are often also used.

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).

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, Dutch speakers tend to find it easier to understand 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 varieties of Chinese are often considered a single language even though there is usually no mutual intelligibility between geographically separated varieties. Another similar example would be varieties of Arabic, which additionally share a single 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 Arabic, Chinese and German, the term Dachsprache (a sociolinguistic "umbrella language") is sometimes seen: Chinese and German are languages in the sociolinguistic sense even though speakers of some varieties cannot understand each other without recourse to a standard or 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]

North Germanic

Main article: North Germanic languages § Mutual intelligibility

Northern Germanic languages spoken in Scandinavia form a dialect continuum where two furthermost dialects have almost no mutual intelligibility. As such, spoken Danish and Swedish normally have low mutual intelligibility,[2] but Swedes in the Öresund region (including Malmö and Helsingborg), across a 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.[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:[13]

South Slavic

Main article: South Slavic languages

Serbo-Croatian dialects in relation to Slovene, Macedonian, and Bulgarian: The non-standard vernacular dialects of Serbo-Croatian (i.e. non-Shtokavian dialects: Kajkavian, Chakavian and 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.[14] 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

Germanic

Slavic

Indo-Aryan

Turkic

  • Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Turkish and Urum[40][41][42] (partially and asymmetrically)[verification needed][43]
  • Uzbek and Uyghur (formerly known as Western and Eastern dialects of Turki; Uzbek uses a Latin alphabet whereas Uyghur uses an alphabet based on the Arabic script)[44][45]
  • Karakalpak, Kazakh and Nogai.[41] Many Turkic languages are mutually intelligible to a higher or lower degree, but thorough empirical research is needed to establish the exact levels and patterns of mutual intelligibility between the languages of this linguistic family. The British Academy funded research project dedicated to examining mutual intelligibility between Karakalpak, Kazakh and Uzbek languages is currently under way at the University of Surrey.[46]

Other

List of dialects or varieties sometimes considered separate languages

See also: Language secessionism and Pluricentric language
  • Akan: Twi and Fante.[60]
  • Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) is a dialect continuum, with some dialects being mutually intelligible and others not.[61] While 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.[62][63]
  • 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.[64]
  • Hindustani: Hindi and Urdu[65] – the standard forms are separate registers of structurally the same language (called Hindustani or Hindi-Urdu), with Hindi written in Devanagari and Urdu mainly in a Perso-Arabic script, and with Hindi drawing its literary and formal vocabulary mainly from Sanskrit and Urdu drawing it mainly from Persian and Arabic.
  • Malay: Indonesian (the standard regulated by Indonesia),[66] Brunei[67] and Malaysian (the standard used in Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore). Both varieties are based on the same material basis and hence are generally mutually intelligible, despite the numerous lexical differences.[68] Certain linguistic sources also treat the two standards on equal standing as varieties of the same Malay language.[69] 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.[70] 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, and vice versa.[71]
  • Persian: Dari and Tajik — Persian and Dari are written in Perso-Arabic script, while Tajik is written in Cyrillic script.[72]
  • 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][73] spoken and written (if the Latin alphabet is used).[74][75] For political reasons, they are sometimes considered distinct languages.[76] 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.[77] 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[78] – 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. ^ 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.
  3. ^ "What is Sign Language?". Linguistic society. 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. ^ 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.
  6. ^ 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. (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. ^ Chambers, J.K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-0-521-59646-6.
  9. ^ Tamburelli, Marco (2021). "Taking taxonomy seriously in linguistics: Intelligibility as a criterion of demarcation between languages and dialects". Lingua. 256: 103068. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103068. S2CID 233800051.
  10. ^ Crystal, David (2006). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.). Blackwell. p. 144. 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. ^ 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] 2014-08-27 at the Wayback Machine
  14. ^ Радева, Василка (15 July 2018). Българският език през ХХ век. Pensoft Publishers. ISBN 9789546421135 – via Google Books.
  15. ^ a b Voigt, Stefanie (2014). "Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages within the Romance language family" (PDF). p. 113.
  16. ^ Beswick, Jaine (2005). "Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities". Estudios de Sociolingüística. 6 (1): 39–64.
  17. ^ 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.
  18. ^ "Comparação Português e Castelhano". www.omniglot.com.
  19. ^ "Algumas observações sobre a noção de língua portuguesa" (PDF).
  20. ^ Romanian language – Britannica Online Encyclopedia
  21. ^ Tomić, Olga Mišeska (2004). Balkan Syntax and Semantics. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 461. ISBN 978-90-272-2790-4.
  22. ^ 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.
  23. ^ Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria: WPLC. WPLC, Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria. 1997. p. 66.
  24. ^ 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.
  25. ^ Bø, I (1976). "Ungdom og naboland : en undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabospråkforståelsen". Rogalandsforskning. 4.
  26. ^ 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.
  27. ^ Kaufmann, Manuel (2006). . GRIN. p. 21. Archived from the original on 4 August 2020. Retrieved 5 April 2020.
  28. ^ 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.
  29. ^ "Limburgish". 19 November 2019.
  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 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine, UCLA International Institute
  32. ^ 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.
  33. ^ Brown, E. K.; Asher, R. E.; Simpson, J. M. Y. (2006). Encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Elsevier. p. 647. ISBN 978-0-08-044299-0.
  34. ^ Macedonian language 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine on UCLA
  35. ^ Kevin Hannan (1996). Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia. Peter Lang. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-8204-3365-3.
  36. ^ Łabowicz, Ludmiła. . Archived from the original on 1 May 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
  37. ^ . Lmp.ucla.edu. Archived from the original on 9 November 2011. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
  38. ^ "The Linguistic Innovation Emerging From Rohingya Refugees." by Christine Ro. Forbes. 13 September 2019. [3]
  39. ^ "How Konkani Won the Battle for 'Languagehood'". www.meertens.knaw.nl. Retrieved 1 June 2021.
  40. ^ . UCLA International Institute, Center for World Languages. February 2007. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 26 April 2007.
  41. ^ a b G (2012). "çuvaşlar: The Internal Classification & Migration of Turkic Languages".
  42. ^ Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya (2004). Ukrayna'daki Urum Türkleri ve Folkloru. Milli Folklor, 2004, Yıl. 16, S. 16, s. 59
  43. ^ Sinor, Denis (1969). Inner Asia. History-Civilization-Languages. A syllabus. Bloomington. pp. 71–96. ISBN 978-0-87750-081-0.
  44. ^ ceeres.uchicago.edu
  45. ^ "Uzbek – the Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies".
  46. ^ "Morpho-syntax of mutual intelligibility in the Turkic languages of Central Asia - Surrey Morphology Group". www.smg.surrey.ac.uk. Retrieved 15 December 2022.
  47. ^ Katsura, M. (1973). "Phonemes of the Alu Dialect of Akha". Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.3. 3 (3): 35–54.
  48. ^ 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.
  49. ^ Orukpe, Abel (3 November 2016). "The Linguistic Characteristic Of Esan Language: Towards Its Empowerment and Development". Retrieved 7 July 2021.
  50. ^ Katzner, Kenneth (2002). The languages of the world. Routledge. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-415-25003-0.
  51. ^ Taagepera, Rein (1999). The Finno-Ugric republics and the Russian state. Routledge. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-415-91977-7.
  52. ^ Christina Bratt Paulston (1988). International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. p. 110. ISBN 9780313244841.
  53. ^ Kinyarwanda at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019)  
  54. ^ Xibe at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019)  
  55. ^ "Ausbau and Abstand languages". ccat.sas.upenn.edu.
  56. ^ Tokelauan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019)  
  57. ^ Tuvaluan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019)  
  58. ^ 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.
  59. ^ 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.
  60. ^ Chuka Obiorah (12 December 2013). "Twi Language – Akan's Popular Dialect". Buzz Ghana. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  61. ^ Gutman, Ariel (2018). Attributive constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Language Science Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-3-96110-081-1.
  62. ^ 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.
  63. ^ 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.
  64. ^ "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" 2008-12-17 at the Wayback Machine. Report from Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua about denomination and identity of Valencian.
  65. ^ 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.
  66. ^ 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.
  67. ^ "Majlis Bahasa Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Malaysia (MABBIM)" [Malaysian language]. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 29 July 2022. Retrieved 6 February 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  68. ^ Adelaar, K. Alexander; Himmelmann, Nikolaus (7 March 2013). The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. Routledge. ISBN 9781136755095.
  69. ^ 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
  70. ^ . July 2005. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016.
  71. ^ Sugiharto, Setiono (25 October 2008). "Indonesian-Malay mutual intelligibility?". Retrieved 6 December 2019.(registration required)
  72. ^ "Dari/Persian/Tajik languages" (PDF).
  73. ^ 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.
  74. ^ 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
  75. ^ 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. (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. (ÖNB).
  76. ^ 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.
  77. ^ "Moldovan (limba moldovenească / лимба молдовеняскэ)".
  78. ^ "Santiago Villafania | Pangasinan Poet". archive.ph. 6 December 2012. Archived from the original on 6 December 2012. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

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.

External links

April 28, 2023
mutual, intelligibility, linguistics, mutual, intelligibility, relationship, between, languages, dialects, which, speakers, different, related, varieties, readily, understand, each, other, without, prior, familiarity, special, effort, used, important, criterio. 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 used as an important criterion for distinguishing languages from dialects although sociolinguistic factors are often also used Statue of the first Czechoslovak president Tomas 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 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 Contents 1 Intelligibility 1 1 Factors 1 2 Asymmetric intelligibility 1 3 Among sign languages 2 As a criterion for identifying separate languages 3 Within dialect continua 3 1 North Germanic 3 2 Romance 3 3 South Slavic 4 List of mutually intelligible languages 4 1 Romance 4 2 Germanic 4 3 Slavic 4 4 Indo Aryan 4 5 Turkic 4 6 Other 5 List of dialects or varieties sometimes considered separate languages 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External linksIntelligibility EditFactors Edit 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 Edit 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 Dutch speakers tend to find it easier to understand Afrikaans than vice versa as a result of Afrikaans simplified grammar 2 Among sign languages Edit 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 EditFurther 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 varieties of Chinese are often considered a single language even though there is usually no mutual intelligibility between geographically separated varieties Another similar example would be varieties of Arabic which additionally share a single 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 Arabic Chinese and German the term Dachsprache a sociolinguistic umbrella language is sometimes seen Chinese and German are languages in the sociolinguistic sense even though speakers of some varieties cannot understand each other without recourse to a standard or prestige form Within dialect continua EditThis 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 North Germanic Edit Main article North Germanic languages Mutual intelligibility Northern Germanic languages spoken in Scandinavia form a dialect continuum where two furthermost dialects have almost no mutual intelligibility As such spoken Danish and Swedish normally have low mutual intelligibility 2 but Swedes in the Oresund region including Malmo and Helsingborg across a 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 Bokmal written standard of Norwegian developed from Dano Norwegian a koine 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 Edit 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 13 Iberian Romance Portuguese Galician Mirandese Astur Leonese Castilian Aragonese Occitano Romance Catalan Occitan Gallo Romance Langues d oil including French Franco Provencal Rhaeto Romance Romansh Ladin Friulian Gallo Italic Piedmontese Ligurian Lombard Emilian Romagnol Venetian Italo Dalmatian Corsican Italian Neapolitan Sicilian Istriot Dalmatian extinct Sardinian Eastern Romance Daco Romanian Istro Romanian Aromanian Megleno Romanian South Slavic Edit Main article South Slavic languages Serbo Croatian dialects in relation to Slovene Macedonian and Bulgarian The non standard vernacular dialects of Serbo Croatian i e non Shtokavian dialects Kajkavian Chakavian and 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 14 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 EditThis section needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section Unsourced material may be challenged and removed July 2022 Learn how and when to remove this template message Romance Edit Italian and Spanish partially 15 Portuguese and Galician very high 16 Portuguese and Italian partially 17 18 19 Romanian Aromanian Megleno Romanian and Istro Romanian significantly 20 Spanish and Portuguese significantly in written form asymmetrically in spoken form 15 Spanish and Judeo Spanish spoken or written in the Latin alphabet Judeo Spanish may also be written in the Hebrew alphabet Depending on dialect and the number of non Spanish loanwords used 21 22 23 24 Germanic Edit Danish Norwegian and Swedish 25 partially and asymmetrically 2 Dutch and Afrikaans in written form in spoken form partially 2 26 Dutch and West Frisian partially 2 English and Scots partially 27 self published source dead link German and Yiddish 28 only spoken because German is usually written in Latin script and Yiddish usually in the Hebrew alphabet However Yiddish s use of many borrowed words chiefly from Hebrew and Slavic languages makes it more difficult for a German speaker to understand spoken Yiddish than the reverse Limburgish Dutch and Afrikaans partially 29 Slavic Edit Belarusian Russian and Ukrainian partially 30 Bulgarian and Macedonian significantly 31 Czech and Slovak significantly 32 Czech and Polish partially and asymmetrically 33 Macedonian and Serbo Croatian 34 Polish and Slovak reasonably 32 35 Polish Ukrainian and Belarusian 36 both partially moreover Belarusian and Ukrainian are written in Cyrillic while Polish is written in Latin Serbo Croatian and Slovene moderate 37 Indo Aryan Edit Bengali Assamese as well as Odia Please refer to the respective pages for more information Chittagonian and Rohingya 38 The Chittagonian and Rohingya languages have a high degree of mutual intelligibility while Chittagonian is written with Eastern Nagri script and Rohingya is written with Hanifi script Hindi and Urdu See the article on Hindustani language Marathi and Konkani significantly 39 Turkic Edit Azerbaijani Crimean Tatar Gagauz Turkish and Urum 40 41 42 partially and asymmetrically verification needed 43 Uzbek and Uyghur formerly known as Western and Eastern dialects of Turki Uzbek uses a Latin alphabet whereas Uyghur uses an alphabet based on the Arabic script 44 45 Karakalpak Kazakh and Nogai 41 Many Turkic languages are mutually intelligible to a higher or lower degree but thorough empirical research is needed to establish the exact levels and patterns of mutual intelligibility between the languages of this linguistic family The British Academy funded research project dedicated to examining mutual intelligibility between Karakalpak Kazakh and Uzbek languages is currently under way at the University of Surrey 46 Other Edit Akha Honi and Hani variety of different written scripts 47 Dungan and Mandarin especially with Central Plains Mandarin 48 partially Dungan is usually written in Cyrillic and Mandarin usually in Chinese characters Esan and Edo 49 the different varieties of Edoid languages are mutually intelligible such that successful communication between speakers is not affected Estonian and Finnish partially 50 Finnish and Karelian significantly 51 Hiligaynon Capiznon significantly citation needed and Cebuano significantly Irish and Scottish Gaelic partially 52 Kinyarwanda and Kirundi 53 Manchu and Xibe 54 Thai Southern Thai Lao Isan Northern Thai Shan and Tai Lue 55 both partially and asymmetrically only Central Thai and Southern Thai are significantly mutually intelligible both in written and spoken forms while other languages have their own scripts Tokelauan and Tuvaluan 56 57 Tunisian Arabic and Maltese 32 33 of sentences Maltese is written with the Latin script while Tunisian Arabic is written with the Arabic script 58 Tunisian Arabic and Libyan Arabic 68 70 of sentences 58 Zulu Northern Ndebele partially 59 Xhosa partially 59 and Swazi partially 59 List of dialects or varieties sometimes considered separate languages EditSee also Language secessionism and Pluricentric language Akan Twi and Fante 60 Northeastern Neo Aramaic NENA is a dialect continuum with some dialects being mutually intelligible and others not 61 While 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 62 63 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 64 Hindustani Hindi and Urdu 65 the standard forms are separate registers of structurally the same language called Hindustani or Hindi Urdu with Hindi written in Devanagari and Urdu mainly in a Perso Arabic script and with Hindi drawing its literary and formal vocabulary mainly from Sanskrit and Urdu drawing it mainly from Persian and Arabic Malay Indonesian the standard regulated by Indonesia 66 Brunei 67 and Malaysian the standard used in Malaysia Brunei and Singapore Both varieties are based on the same material basis and hence are generally mutually intelligible despite the numerous lexical differences 68 Certain linguistic sources also treat the two standards on equal standing as varieties of the same Malay language 69 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 70 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 and vice versa 71 Persian Dari and Tajik Persian and Dari are written in Perso Arabic script while Tajik is written in Cyrillic script 72 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 73 spoken and written if the Latin alphabet is used 74 75 For political reasons they are sometimes considered distinct languages 76 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 77 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 78 the national language of the Philippines Filipino is based almost entirely on the Luzon dialects of Tagalog See also EditSister language Dialect levelling Koine language Lexical similarity Lingua franca Multilingualism Non convergent discourseReferences Edit 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 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 What is Sign Language Linguistic society Archived from the original on 13 February 2018 Retrieved 10 March 2018 Nakamura Karen 1995 About American Sign Language Deaf Resource Library Yale University 1 Groschel 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 a b Kordic Snjezana 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 See e g P H Matthews The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics OUP 2007 p 103 Chambers J K Trudgill Peter 1998 Dialectology 2nd ed Cambridge University Press pp 3 4 ISBN 978 0 521 59646 6 Tamburelli Marco 2021 Taking taxonomy seriously in linguistics Intelligibility as a criterion of demarcation between languages and dialects Lingua 256 103068 doi 10 1016 j lingua 2021 103068 S2CID 233800051 Crystal David 2006 A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics 6th ed Blackwell p 144 ISBN 978 1 405 15296 9 Bloomfield Leonard 1935 Language London George Allen amp Unwin p 51 Hockett Charles F 1958 A Course in Modern Linguistics New York Macmillan pp 324 325 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 Radeva Vasilka 15 July 2018 Blgarskiyat ezik prez HH vek Pensoft Publishers ISBN 9789546421135 via Google Books a b Voigt Stefanie 2014 Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages within the Romance language family PDF p 113 Beswick Jaine 2005 Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities Estudios de Sociolinguistica 6 1 39 64 GAVILANES LASO J L 1996 Algunas consideraciones sobre la inteligibilidad mutua hispano portuguesa full citation needed In Actas del Congreso Internacional Luso Espanol de Lengua y Cultura en la Frontera Caceres Universidad de Extremadura 175 187 Comparacao Portugues e Castelhano www omniglot com Algumas observacoes sobre a nocao de lingua portuguesa PDF Romanian language Britannica Online Encyclopedia Tomic Olga Miseska 2004 Balkan Syntax and Semantics John Benjamins Publishing p 461 ISBN 978 90 272 2790 4 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 Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria WPLC WPLC Department of Linguistics University of Victoria 1997 p 66 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 Bo I 1976 Ungdom og naboland en undersokelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabosprakforstaelsen Rogalandsforskning 4 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 Kaufmann Manuel 2006 English in Scotland a phonological approach GRIN p 21 Archived from the original on 4 August 2020 Retrieved 5 April 2020 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 Limburgish 19 November 2019 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 Language profile Macedonian Archived 2009 03 11 at the Wayback Machine UCLA International Institute 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 Brown E K Asher R E Simpson J M Y 2006 Encyclopedia of language amp linguistics Elsevier p 647 ISBN 978 0 08 044299 0 Macedonian language Archived 2009 03 11 at the Wayback Machine on UCLA Kevin Hannan 1996 Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia Peter Lang p 3 ISBN 978 0 8204 3365 3 Labowicz Ludmila Gdzie sicz a gdzie porohy st 15 Part II Archived from the original on 1 May 2013 Retrieved 19 July 2014 UCLA Language Materials Project Language Profile Lmp ucla edu Archived from the original on 9 November 2011 Retrieved 4 September 2013 The Linguistic Innovation Emerging From Rohingya Refugees by Christine Ro Forbes 13 September 2019 3 How Konkani Won the Battle for Languagehood www meertens knaw nl Retrieved 1 June 2021 Language Materials Project Turkish UCLA International Institute Center for World Languages February 2007 Archived from the original on 11 October 2007 Retrieved 26 April 2007 a b G 2012 cuvaslar The Internal Classification amp Migration of Turkic Languages Kasapoglu Cengel Hulya 2004 Ukrayna daki Urum Turkleri ve Folkloru Milli Folklor 2004 Yil 16 S 16 s 59 Sinor Denis 1969 Inner Asia History Civilization Languages A syllabus Bloomington pp 71 96 ISBN 978 0 87750 081 0 ceeres uchicago edu Uzbek the Center for East European and Russian Eurasian Studies Morpho syntax of mutual intelligibility in the Turkic languages of Central Asia Surrey Morphology Group www smg surrey ac uk Retrieved 15 December 2022 Katsura M 1973 Phonemes of the Alu Dialect of Akha Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No 3 3 3 35 54 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 Orukpe Abel 3 November 2016 The Linguistic Characteristic Of Esan Language Towards Its Empowerment and Development Retrieved 7 July 2021 Katzner Kenneth 2002 The languages of the world Routledge p 105 ISBN 978 0 415 25003 0 Taagepera Rein 1999 The Finno Ugric republics and the Russian state Routledge p 100 ISBN 978 0 415 91977 7 Christina Bratt Paulston 1988 International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education p 110 ISBN 9780313244841 Kinyarwanda at Ethnologue 22nd ed 2019 Xibe at Ethnologue 22nd ed 2019 Ausbau and Abstand languages ccat sas upenn edu Tokelauan at Ethnologue 22nd ed 2019 Tuvaluan at Ethnologue 22nd ed 2019 a b Ceplo Slavomir Batora Jan Benkato Adam Milicka Jiri Pereira Christophe Zemanek 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 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 Chuka Obiorah 12 December 2013 Twi Language Akan s Popular Dialect Buzz Ghana Retrieved 6 May 2019 Gutman Ariel 2018 Attributive constructions in North Eastern Neo Aramaic Language Science Press p 1 ISBN 978 3 96110 081 1 Hauenschild Ingeborg Kellner Heinkele Barbara Kappler Matthias 2020 Eine hundertblattrige Tulpe Bir ṣadbarg lala Festgabe fur Claus Schonig in German Walter de Gruyter GmbH amp Co KG p 361 ISBN 978 3 11 220924 0 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 Dictamen de l Academia Valenciana de la Llengua sobre els principis i criteris per a la defensa de la denominacio i l entitat del valencia Archived 2008 12 17 at the Wayback Machine Report from Academia Valenciana de la Llengua about denomination and identity of Valencian 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 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 Majlis Bahasa Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Malaysia MABBIM Malaysian language Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka 29 July 2022 Retrieved 6 February 2023 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint url status link Adelaar K Alexander Himmelmann Nikolaus 7 March 2013 The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar Routledge ISBN 9781136755095 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 Who is Malay July 2005 Archived from the original on 4 March 2016 Sugiharto Setiono 25 October 2008 Indonesian Malay mutual intelligibility Retrieved 6 December 2019 registration required Dari Persian Tajik languages PDF 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 verstandigen Nur schon diese Tatsache zeigt dass es sich immer noch um eine polyzentrische Sprache mit verschiedenen Varietaten handelt Sipka 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 Kordic Snjezana 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 Beitrage 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 ONB 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 Moldovan limba moldovenească limba moldovenyaske Santiago Villafania Pangasinan Poet archive ph 6 December 2012 Archived from the original on 6 December 2012 Retrieved 4 December 2019 Further reading EditCasad 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 Golubovic Jelena Schuppert 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 External links EditHarold Schiffman Linguists Definition mutual intelligibility University of Pennsylvania Common words between languages Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Mutual intelligibility amp oldid 1152008274, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.