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.

In a dialect continuum, neighbouring 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.

Types

Asymmetric intelligibility

Asymmetric intelligibility refers to a relationship between two partially mutually intelligible languages in which one group of speakers has greater difficulty understanding the other language than vice versa, due to various linguistic or sociocultural factors. 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.<ref name="gooskens"/>

Among sign languages

Template:Further Sign languages are not universal and usually not mutually intelligible,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> 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. 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.<ref>Nakamura, Karen. (1995). "About American Sign Language." Deaf Resource Library, Yale University. [1]</ref>

As a criterion for distinguishing languages

Template:Further Some linguists use mutual intelligibility as the primary linguistic criterion for determining whether two speech varieties represent the same or different languages.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref name=KordiJin/><ref>See e.g. P.H. Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, OUP 2007, p. 103.; W. Abraham (ed.), Terminologie zur neueren Linguistik, Tübingen 1974, p. 411; T. Lewandowski, Linguistisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg/Wiesbaden (5th ed.) 1990, pp. 994–995; L. Campbell, Historical linguistics. An introduction, Edinburgh 1998, p. 165; G. Mounin, Schlüssel zur Linguistik, Hamburg, 1978, p. 55; U. Ammon, "Language – Variety/Standard Variety – Dialect", U. Ammon et al (ed.), Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society / Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft, Berlin/New York 1987, p. 324; D. Crystal, A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, Oxford (4th ed) 1997, 2003, p. 286.</ref>

A primary challenge to this view is that speakers of closely related languages can often communicate effectively when they choose to. For example, in the case of transparently cognate languages recognized as distinct such as Spanish and Italian mutual intelligibility is neither binary nor absolute, but exists along a spectrum, influenced by numerous speaker-specific and contextual variables.

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.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

It is often claimed by linguists that mutual intelligibility is completely gradual (successively decreasing more and more, especially in a dialect continuum) and thus not very useful as a criterion for demarcating boundaries between languages (unless they are separated by a clear language border), but a 2021 study suggests that it can allow for meaningful segmentation.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Within dialect continua

North Germanic

Template:Main 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,<ref name="gooskens"/> 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.<ref name="gooskens">Template:Cite journal</ref> As a consequence, spoken mutual intelligibility is not reciprocal.<ref name=gooskens/>

Romance

Template:Main 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:<ref>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] Template:Webarchive</ref>

• Iberian Romance: Portuguese, Galician, Mirandese, Astur-Leonese, Castilian (Spanish), 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

Template:Main 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.<ref name=Bul20>Template:Cite book</ref>

List of mutually intelligible languages

Afroasiatic

• Tunisian Arabic and Libyan Arabic (68–70% of sentences)<ref name="Maltese-Arabic"/>
• Tunisian Arabic and Maltese (32–33% of sentences; Maltese is written with the Latin script, while Tunisian Arabic is written with the Arabic script)<ref name="Maltese-Arabic">Template:Cite journal</ref>

Atlantic–Congo

• Kinyarwanda and Kirundi<ref>Template:Ethnologue22</ref>
• Luganda and Lusoga (partially)<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Nkore and Kiga<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Zulu, Northern Ndebele (significantly),<ref name=Angogo>Template:Cite web</ref> Xhosa (significantly),<ref name=Angogo/> Swazi (significantly), Southern Ndebele (partially),<ref name=Angogo/>

Austronesian

• Banjarese, Berau Malay, and Brunei Malay<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Iban and Malay, especially with Sarawakian Malay (partially)<ref name="ANU Press">Template:Cite book</ref>
• Tokelauan and Tuvaluan<ref>Template:Ethnologue22</ref><ref>Template:Ethnologue22</ref>
• Tagalog and Kasiguranin (partially)
• Maranao and Iranun

Indo-European

Germanic

• Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish<ref name="DanNorSve">Template:Cite journal</ref> (significantly and asymmetrically)<ref name="gooskens"/>
• Dutch and Afrikaans (significantly and asymmetrically)<ref name="gooskens"/><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
• Dutch and West Frisian (partially)<ref name="gooskens"/>
• German and Yiddish (partially)<ref name="DeuYid">Template:Cite book</ref>
• English and Scots (significantly)
• English, Manglish, and Singlish (the latter two being English-based creoles)

Romance

• Portuguese and Galician (very significantly)<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
• Occitan and Catalan (significantly)
• Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian (significantly)<ref>Romanian language – Britannica Online Encyclopedia</ref>
• Spanish and Italian (partially) <ref name=Voigt2014>Template:Cite news</ref>
• 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.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Spanish and Portuguese (significantly and asymmetrically)<ref name=Voigt2014/>

East Slavic

• Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian (very highly)<ref name=BlrRusUkr>Template:Cite book
  Template:Cite book
  Template:Cite book</ref>

South Slavic

• Macedonian and Bulgarian (significantly)<ref name=BulMac>Language profile Macedonian Template:Webarchive, UCLA International Institute</ref>
• Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian (moderately to significantly)<ref name="Macedonian language">Macedonian language Template:Webarchive on UCLA</ref>
• Slovene and Serbo-Croatian (partially)<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

West Slavic

• Czech and Slovak (significantly)<ref name=CzeSlo>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Polish and Czech (partially and asymmetrically)<ref name=enc>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Polish and Slovak (reasonably to partially)<ref name=CzeSlo/><ref name=khannan>Template:Cite book</ref>

Other subdivisions

• Irish and Scottish Gaelic (partially)<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Marathi and certain dialects of Konkani (significantly)<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

Kra-Dai

• Central Thai, Lao/Isan, Northern Thai, Shan and Tai Lue<ref name=ThaiLao>Template:Cite web</ref>

Sino-Tibetan

• Akha, Honi and Hani (variety of different written scripts)<ref name="Katsura">Template:Cite journal</ref>
• Dungan and Mandarin, especially with Central Plains Mandarin<ref name="dungan">Template:Cite journal p. 351.</ref>

Turkic

• Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Turkish and Urum<ref name="refHülyakasapoğluçengel">Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya (2004). Ukrayna'daki Urum Türkleri ve Folkloru. Milli Folklor, 2004, Yıl. 16, S. 16, s. 59</ref> (partially)<ref name=innerAsia>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Uzbek and Uyghur<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

Uralic

• Finnish and Estonian (partially)<ref name="Katzner105">Template:Cite book</ref>
• Finnish and Karelian (significantly)<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Tungusic

• Manchu and Xibe<ref>Template:Ethnologue22</ref>

List of dialects or varieties sometimes considered separate languages

• Catalan: ValencianTemplate:Sndthe standard forms are structurally the same language and share the vast majority of their vocabulary, and hence highly mutually intelligible. They are not considered separate languages and both names -Valencian and Catalan- are officially recognized.<ref>"Acord de l’Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua (AVL), adoptat en la reunió plenària del 9 de febrer del 2005, pel qual s’aprova el dictamen sobre els principis i criteris per a la defensa de la denominació i l’entitat del valencià" Template:Webarchive. Report from Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua about denomination and identity of Valencian.</ref>
• Hindustani: Hindi and Urdu.<ref name=HinUrd>Template:Cite journal</ref> Hindi is written in Devanagari while Urdu is written in Perso-Arabic script.
• Malay: Indonesian (the standard regulated by Indonesia),<ref name=IndMal>Template:Cite book</ref> Brunei<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> 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.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Certain linguistic sources also treat the two standards on equal standing as varieties of the same Malay language.<ref>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</ref> 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<ref>Template:Cite conference</ref> rather than the formal standard acquired in academical contexts) and vice versa.<ref>Template:Cite webTemplate:Registration required</ref>
• Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA): NENA is a dialect continuum, with some dialects being mutually intelligible and others not.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> 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.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Persian: Iranian Persian (natively simply known as Persian), Dari and TajikTemplate:SndPersian and Dari are written in Perso-Arabic script, while Tajik is written in Cyrillic script.<ref name=DariPersianTajik>Template:Cite web</ref>
• Serbo-Croatian: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and SerbianTemplate:Sndthe national varieties are structurally the same language, all constituting normative varieties of the Shtokavian dialect, and hence mutually intelligible,<ref name=KordiJin>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> spoken and written (if the Latin alphabet is used).<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book (ÖNB).</ref> For political reasons, they are sometimes considered distinct languages.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
• Sukhothai: Central Thai, Southern Thai

See also

• Dialect levelling
• Lexical similarity
• Lingua franca
• Multilingualism
• Non-convergent discourse
• Sister language

Template:Div col end

Further reading

• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite journal
• Template:Cite journal

External links

• Harold Schiffman, "Linguists' Definition: mutual intelligibility". University of Pennsylvania.