- Source: Mutual intelligibility
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.
= Among sign languages
=Sign languages are not universal and usually not mutually intelligible, 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.
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.
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.
Within dialect continua
= 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, 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. As a consequence, spoken mutual intelligibility is not reciprocal.
= 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:
Iberian Romance: Portuguese, Galician, Mirandese, Astur-Leonese, Castilian, Aragonese;
Occitano-Romance: Catalan, Occitan;
Southern Romance: Sardinian;
Gallo-Romance: Langues d'oïl (including French), Piedmontese, Franco-Provençal;
Rhaeto-Romance: Romansh, Ladin, Friulian;
Gallo-Italic: Piedmontese, Ligurian, Lombard, Emilian-Romagnol, Venetian;
Italo-Dalmatian (including Italian): Corsican, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Istriot, Dalmatian (extinct);
Eastern Romance: Daco-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian.
= 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.
List of mutually intelligible languages
= Afroasiatic
=Tunisian Arabic and Libyan Arabic (68–70% of sentences)
Tunisian Arabic and Maltese (32–33% of sentences; Maltese is written with the Latin script while Tunisian Arabic is written with the Arabic script)
= Atlantic–Congo
=Kinyarwanda and Kirundi
Luganda and Lusoga (partially)
Nkore and Kiga
Zulu, Northern Ndebele (partially), Xhosa (partially), and Swazi (partially)
= Austronesian
=Iban and Malay, especially with Sarawakian Malay (partially)
Tokelauan and Tuvaluan
Tagalog and Kasiguranin (partially)
= Indo-European
=Germanic
Danish, Norwegian and Swedish (partially and asymmetrically)
Dutch and Afrikaans (in written form; in spoken form partially)
Dutch and West Frisian (partially)
German and Yiddish (partially)
English and Scots (significantly)
Romance
Portuguese and Galician (significantly)
Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian (significantly)
Spanish and Italian (partially)
Spanish and Judaeo-Spanish (spoken or written in the Latin alphabet; Judaeo-Spanish may also be written in the Hebrew alphabet). Depending on dialect and the number of non-Spanish loanwords used.
Spanish and Portuguese (significantly)
Slavic
Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish
Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian (partially)
Czech and Slovak (significantly)
Macedonian and Bulgarian (significantly)
Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian (moderately to significantly)
Polish and Czech (partially and asymmetrically)
Polish and Slovak (reasonably to partially)
Slovene and Serbo-Croatian (moderately)
Other subdivisions
Irish and Scottish Gaelic (partially)
Marathi and certain dialects of Konkani (significantly)
= Sino-Tibetan
=Akha, Honi and Hani (variety of different written scripts)
Dungan and Mandarin, especially with Central Plains Mandarin
= Turkic
=Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Turkish and Urum (partially)
Uzbek and Uyghur
= Uralic
=Finnish and Estonian (partially)
Finnish and Karelian (significantly)
= Other
=Manchu and Xibe
Central Thai, Lao/Isan, Northern Thai, Shan and Tai Lue
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.
Hindustani: Hindi and Urdu
Malay: Indonesian (the standard regulated by Indonesia), Brunei 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. Certain linguistic sources also treat the two standards on equal standing as varieties of the same Malay language. 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 rather than the formal standard acquired in academical contexts) and vice versa.
Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA): NENA is a dialect continuum, with some dialects being mutually intelligible and others not. 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.
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.
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, spoken and written (if the Latin alphabet is used). For political reasons, they are sometimes considered distinct languages.
Sukhothai: Central Thai, Southern Thai
See also
References
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
Harold Schiffman, "Linguists' Definition: mutual intelligibility". University of Pennsylvania.
Kata Kunci Pencarian:
- Bahasa Hokkien Amoy
- Kesalingpahaman
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Rumpun bahasa Roman Barat
- Bahasa Lombard
- Polinesia Prancis
- Bahasa Afrikaans
- Mutual intelligibility
- Afrikaans
- Czech language
- Danish language
- Japanese dialects
- Dialect
- North Germanic languages
- Comparison of Afrikaans and Dutch
- Varieties of Arabic
- Languages of the Philippines
