In
linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between
languages or
dialects in which speakers of different but related
varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort. It is sometimes used as an important criterion for distinguishing languages from dialects, although
sociolinguistic factors are often also used.
Intelligibility between languages can be asymmetric, with speakers of one understanding more of the other than speakers of the other understanding the first. When it is relatively symmetric, it is characterized as "mutual". It exists in differing degrees among many related or geographically proximate languages of the world, often in the context of a
dialect continuum.
Intelligibility
Factors
An individual's achievement of moderate proficiency or understanding in a language (called L2) other than their
first language (L1) typically requires considerable time and effort through study and
practical application if the two languages are not very closely related.[1] Advanced speakers of a second language typically aim for intelligibility, especially in situations where they work in their second language and the necessity of being understood is high.[1]
However, many groups of languages are partly mutually intelligible, i.e. most speakers of one language find it relatively easy to achieve some degree of understanding in the related language(s). Often the two languages are
genetically related, and they are likely to be similar to each other in
grammar,
vocabulary,
pronunciation, or other features.
Intelligibility among languages can vary between individuals or groups within a language population according to their knowledge of various
registers and vocabulary in their own language, their exposure to additional related languages, their interest in or familiarity with other cultures, the domain of discussion,
psycho-
cognitive traits, the mode of language used (written vs. oral), and other factors.
Linguistic distance is the name for the concept of calculating a measurement for how different languages are from one another. The higher the linguistic distance, the lower the mutual intelligibility.
Asymmetric intelligibility
Asymmetric intelligibility refers to two languages that are considered partially mutually intelligible, but where one group of speakers has more difficulty understanding the other language than the other way around. There can be various reasons for this. If, for example, one language is related to another but has simplified its grammar, the speakers of the original language may understand the simplified language, but less vice versa. For example,
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]
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.
A
dialect continuum or dialect chain is a series of
language varieties spoken across some geographical area such that neighboring varieties are mutually intelligible, but the differences accumulate over distance so that widely separated varieties may not be.[10] This is a typical occurrence with widely spread languages and language families around the world, when these languages did not spread recently. Some prominent examples include the
Indo-Aryan languages across large parts of
India,
varieties of Arabic across north Africa and southwest Asia, the
Turkic languages, the
Chinese languages or dialects, and parts of the
Romance,
Germanic and
Slavic families in Europe. Terms used in older literature include dialect area (
Leonard Bloomfield)[11] and L-complex (
Charles F. Hockett).[12]
Dialect continua typically occur in long-settled agrarian populations, as innovations spread from their various points of origin as
waves. In this situation, hierarchical classifications of varieties are impractical. Instead,
dialectologists map variation of various language features across a dialect continuum, drawing lines called
isoglosses between areas that differ with respect to some feature.[13]
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:[14]
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.[15] All South Slavic languages in effect form a large dialect continuum of gradually mutually intelligible varieties depending on distance between the areas where they are spoken.
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.[22][23][24][25]
German and
Yiddish[29] (only spoken, because German is usually written in Latin script and Yiddish usually in the
Hebrew alphabet). However, Yiddish 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.
Chittagonian and
Rohingya[39] (The Chittagonian and Rohingya languages have a high degree of mutual intelligibility, while Chittagonian is written with
Bengali script and Rohingya is written with Hanifi script)
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)[45][46]
Karakalpak,
Kazakh,
Kyrgyz and
Nogai.[42] 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.[47]
Esan and
Edo[51] (the different varieties of
Edoid languages are mutually intelligible, such that successful communication between speakers is not affected).
Thai,
Southern Thai,
Lao (
Isan),
Northern Thai,
Shan and
Tai Lue[62] (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.)
Catalan:
Valencian – the standard forms are structurally the same language and share the vast majority of their vocabulary, and hence highly mutually intelligible. They are considered separate languages only for political reasons.[68]
Hindustani:
Hindi and
Urdu[69] – 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),[70]Brunei[71] 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.[72] Certain linguistic sources also treat the two standards on equal standing as varieties of the same Malay language.[73] Malaysians tend to assert that Malaysian and Indonesian are merely different normative varieties of the same language, while Indonesians tend to treat them as separate, albeit closely related, languages.[74] However, vernacular or less formal varieties spoken between these two countries share limited intelligibility, evidenced by Malaysians having difficulties understanding Indonesian
sinetron (soap opera) aired on their TV stations (which actually uses a colloquial offshoot heavily influenced by
Betawi vernacular of
Jakarta[75] rather than the formal standard acquired in academical contexts) and vice versa.[76]
Serbo-Croatian:
Bosnian,
Croatian,
Montenegrin, and
Serbian – the national varieties are structurally the same language, all constituting normative varieties of the
Shtokavian dialect, and hence mutually intelligible,[6][78] spoken and written (if the
Latin alphabet is used).[79][80] For political reasons, they are sometimes considered distinct languages.[81] Shtokavian has its own
set of subdialects, leading some linguists to consider the other dialects (
Kajkavian,
Chakavian, and
Torlakian) as separate languages, closely related to Shtokavian Serbo-Croatian (rather than being Serbo-Croatian dialects).
Romanian:
Moldovan – the standard forms are structurally the same language, and hence mutually intelligible. They are
considered separate languages only for political reasons.[82] Moldovan does, however, have more foreign loanwords from
Russian and
Ukrainian due to historical East Slavic influence on the region but not to the extent where those would affect mutual intelligibility.
Tagalog:
Filipino[83] – the national language of the Philippines, Filipino, is based almost entirely on the Luzon dialects of Tagalog.
^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.
ISBN978-3-929075-79-3.
LCCN2009473660.
OCLC428012015.
OL15295665W.
^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
^Beswick, Jaine (2005). "Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities". Estudios de Sociolingüística. 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-Español de Lengua y Cultura en la Frontera, Cáceres, Universidad de Extremadura, 175–187.
^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...
^
abTrudgill, 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.
ISBN978-0-8204-7328-4.
^Bellwood, Peter; Fox, James J.; Tryon, Darrell, eds. (2006). The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Canberra: ANU Press.
doi:10.22459/a.09.2006.
ISBN978-1-920942-85-4.
^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
^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.
^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.
^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.
ISBN978-953-313-086-6.
LCCN2018048005.
OCLC1061308790.
S2CID150383965. 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