1887
image of How well can intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe be predicted by linguistic and non-linguistic variables?
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN 1879-9272
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We measured mutual intelligibility of 16 closely related spoken languages in Europe. Intelligibility was determined for all 70 language combinations using the same uniform methodology (a cloze test). We analysed the results of 1833 listeners representing the mutual intelligibility between young, educated Europeans from the same 16 countries.

Lexical, phonological, orthographic, morphological and syntactic distances were computed as linguistic variables. We also quantified non-linguistic variables (e.g. exposure, attitudes towards the test languages). Using stepwise regression analysis the importance of linguistic and non-linguistic predictors for the mutual intelligibility in the 70 language pairs was assessed.

Exposure to the test language was the most important variable, overriding all other variables. Then, limiting the analysis to the prediction of inherent intelligibility, we analysed the results for a subset of listeners with no or little previous exposure to the test language. Linguistic distances, especially lexical distance, now explain a substantial part of the variance.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17084.goo
2019-01-28
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Braunmüller, K.
    (2007) Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages: A description of a scenario. InJ. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism (pp.25–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hsm.6.04bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.6.04bra [Google Scholar]
  2. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages. Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Delsing, L. O., & Lundin Åkesson, K.
    (2005) Håller språket ihop Norden? En forskningsrapport om ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska [Does the language keep together the Nordic countries? A research report of mutual comprehension between young Danes, Swedes and Norwegians]. Copenhagen: Nordiska ministerrådet. 10.6027/tn2005‑573
    https://doi.org/10.6027/tn2005-573 [Google Scholar]
  4. Doetjes, G., & Gooskens, C.
    (2009) Skriftsprogets rolle i den dansk-svenske talesprogsforståelse [The role of orthography in the mutual intelligibility of spoken Danish and Swedish]. Språk och stil, 19, 105–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Giles, H., & Niedzielski, N.
    (1998) Italian is beautiful, German is ugly. InL. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language myths (pp.85–93). London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Golubović, J.
    (2016) Mutual intelligibility in the Slavic language area. Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gooskens, C.
    (accepted). Receptive multilingualism. InS. Montanari & S. Quay Eds. Multidisciplinary perspectives on multilingualism. Berlin: De Gruyter.
  8. (2006) Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of Inter-Scandinavian intelligibility. InJ. van de Weijer & B. Los (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 23, (pp.101–113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2007) The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(6), 445–467. 10.2167/jmmd511.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/jmmd511.0 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gooskens, C., & Bezooijen, R. van
    (2006) Mutual comprehensibility of written Afrikaans and Dutch: symmetrical or asymmetrical?Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23, 543–557. 10.1093/llc/fql036
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fql036 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gooskens, C., Bezooijen, R. van, & Heuven, V. J. van
    (2015) Mutual intelligibility of Dutch-German cognates by children: The devil is in the detail. Linguistics, 53(2), 255–283. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gooskens, C., & Heeringa, W.
    (in preparation). Linguistic distances between Germanic, Romance and Slavic languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gooskens, C., & Heuven, V. J. van
    (2017) Measuring cross-linguistic intelligibility in the Germanic, Romance and Slavic language groups. Speech Communication, 89, 25–36. 10.1016/j.specom.2017.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2017.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gooskens, C., Heuven, V. J. van, Golubović, J., Schüppert, A., Swarte, F., & Voigt, S.
    (2018) Mutual intelligibility between closely related language in Europe. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(2), 169–193. 10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hedquist, R.
    (1985) Nederländares förståelse av danka och svenska. En språkpedagogisk undersökning med utnyttjande av likheterna mellan språken. Umeå: Institutionerna för fonetik och nordiska språk, Umeå universiteit.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Heeringa, W., Swarte, F., Schüppert, A., & Gooskens, C.
    (2017) Measuring syntactical variation in Germanic texts. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities33(2), 279–296. 10.1093/llc/fqx029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx029 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heuven, V. J. van
    (2008) Making sense of strange sounds: (Mutual) intelligibility of related language varieties. A review. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2(1–2), 39–62. 10.3366/E1753854809000305
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1753854809000305 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hilton, N. H., Gooskens, C., & Schüppert, A.
    (2013) The influence of non-native morphosyntax on the intelligibility of a closely related language. Lingua, 137, 1–18. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  19. Impe, L.
    (2010) Mutual intelligibility of national and regional varieties of Dutch in the Low Countries. Leuven: University of Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Maurud, Ø.
    (1976) Nabospråksforståelse i Skandinavia. En undersøkelse om gjensidig forståelse av tale- og skriftspråk i Danmark, Norge og Sverige. [Neighbouring language comprehension of spoken and written language in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.] Stockholm: Nordiska rådet.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Nerbonne, J., & Heeringa, W.
    (2010) Measuring dialect differences. InJ. E. Schmidt & P. Auer (Eds.), Language and Space: Theories and Methods. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (pp.550–567). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Nerbonne, J., & Wiersma, W.
    (2006) A measure of Aggregate Syntactic Distance. InJ. Nerbonne & E. Hinrichs (Eds.), Linguistic Distances Workshop at the joint conference of International Committee on Computational Linguistics and the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, July 2006 (pp.82–90).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Perre, L., & Ziegler, J. C.
    (2008) On-line activation of orthography in spoken word recognition. Brain Research, 1188, 132–138. 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.10.084
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.10.084 [Google Scholar]
  24. Schüppert, A.
    (2011) Origin of asymmetry: Mutual intelligibility of spoken Danish and Swedish. Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Schüppert, A., Hilton, N. H., & Gooskens, C.
    (2015) Swedish is beautiful, Danish is ugly? Investigating the link between language attitudes and intelligibility. Linguistics, 53(2), 375–403. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Séguy, J.
    (1973) La dialectométrie dans l’Atlas linguistique de la Gascogne [The dialectometry in the Linguistic Atlas of Gascogne]. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 37, 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Sherkina-Lieber, M.
    (2015) Tense, aspect, and agreement in heritage Labrador Inuttitut. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(1), 30–61. 10.1075/lab.5.1.02she
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.1.02she [Google Scholar]
  28. Swarte, F.
    (2016) Predicting the mutual intelligibility of Germanic languages from linguistic and extralinguistic factors. Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tang, C., & Heuven, V. J. van
    (2009) Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects experimentally tested. Lingua, 119(5), 709–732. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2015) Predicting mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects from multiple objective linguistic distance measures. Linguistics, 53(2), 285–312. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0005 [Google Scholar]
  31. Taylor, W. L.
    (1953) Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Thije, J. D. ten, & Zeevaert, L.
    (2007) Introduction. InJ. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.). Receptive Multilingualism (pp.1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hsm.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.6 [Google Scholar]
  33. Vanhove, J.
    (2014) Receptive multilingualism across the lifespan. Cognitive and linguistic factors in cognate guessing. Fribourg: University of Fribourg.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Voigt, S.
    (in preparation). Predicting the (mutual) intelligibility of Romance languages from linguistic and extra-linguistic factors. Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wolff, H.
    (1959) Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes. Anthropological Linguistics, 1, 34–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Zeevaert, L.
    (2004) Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständigung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs. [Interscandinavian communication. Strategies for establishing comprehension between Scandinavians in discourse.] Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17084.goo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lab.17084.goo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error