Mutual intelligibility

Last updated

Statue of the first Czechoslovak president, Tomas Masaryk, with the Czech flag on the left and the Slovak flag on the right. There is significant mutual intelligibility between the Czech and Slovak languages. Tomas Garrigue Masaryk statue - Army Museum Zizkov.jpg
Statue of the first Czechoslovak president, Tomáš Masaryk, with the Czech flag on the left and the Slovak flag on the right. There is significant mutual intelligibility between the Czech and Slovak languages.

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.

Contents

Intelligibility between varieties can be asymmetric; that is, speakers of one variety can better understand another than vice versa. Among other examples, this is the case between Afrikaans and 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. [1]

Among sign languages

Sign languages are not universal and usually not mutually intelligible, [2] 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. [3]

As a criterion for distinguishing languages

Many linguists use mutual intelligibility as the primary linguistic criterion for determining whether two speech varieties represent the same or different languages. [4] [5] [6]

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. [7]


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. [8] 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) [9] and L-complex (Charles F. Hockett). [10]

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. [11]

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, [1] 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. [1] As a consequence, spoken mutual intelligibility is not reciprocal. [1]

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: [12]

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. [13]

List of mutually intelligible languages

Afroasiatic

Atlantic–Congo

Austronesian

Indo-European

Germanic

Romance

Slavic

Other subdivisions

Sino-Tibetan

Turkic

Uralic

Other

List of dialects or varieties sometimes considered separate languages

See also

Related Research Articles

Dialect refers to two distinctly different types of linguistic relationships.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Macedonian language</span> South Slavic language spoken in North Macedonia

Macedonian is an Eastern South Slavic language. It is part of the Indo-European language family, and is one of the Slavic languages, which are part of a larger Balto-Slavic branch. Spoken as a first language by around 1.6 million people, it serves as the official language of North Macedonia. Most speakers can be found in the country and its diaspora, with a smaller number of speakers throughout the transnational region of Macedonia. Macedonian is also a recognized minority language in parts of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Romania, and Serbia and it is spoken by emigrant communities predominantly in Australia, Canada and the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Serbo-Croatian</span> South Slavic language

Serbo-Croatian – also called Serbo-Croat, Serbo-Croat-Bosnian (SCB), Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS), and Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian (BCMS) – is a South Slavic language and the primary language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. It is a pluricentric language with four mutually intelligible standard varieties, namely Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Serbian language</span> South Slavic language of the Balkans

Serbian is the standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian language mainly used by Serbs. It is the official and national language of Serbia, one of the three official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina and co-official in Montenegro and Kosovo. It is a recognized minority language in Croatia, North Macedonia, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.

A standard language is a language variety that has undergone substantial codification of its grammar, lexicon, writing system, or other features and stands out among other varieties in a community as the one with the highest status or prestige. Often, it is the prestige variety of a whole country. In linguistics, the process of a variety becoming organized into a standard, for instance by being widely expounded in grammar books or other reference works, and also the process of making people's language usage conform to that standard, is called standardization or standardisation.

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. 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 and L-complex.

In sociolinguistics, an abstand language is a language variety or cluster of varieties with significant linguistic distance from all others, while an ausbau language is a standard variety, possibly with related dependent varieties. Heinz Kloss introduced these terms in 1952 to denote two separate and largely independent sets of criteria for recognizing a "language":

Literary language is the form (register) of a language used when writing in a formal, academic, or particularly polite tone; when speaking or writing in such a tone, it can also be known as formal language. It may be the standardized variety of a language. It can sometimes differ noticeably from the various spoken lects, but the difference between literary and non-literary forms is greater in some languages than in others. If there is a strong divergence between a written form and the spoken vernacular, the language is said to exhibit diglossia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Isogloss</span> Geographic boundary of a certain linguistic feature

An isogloss, also called a heterogloss, is the geographic boundary of a certain linguistic feature, such as the pronunciation of a vowel, the meaning of a word, or the use of some morphological or syntactic feature. Isoglosses are a subject of study in dialectology, in which they demarcate the differences between regional dialects of a language; in areal linguistics, in which they represent the extent of borrowing of features between languages in contact with one another; and in the wave model of historical linguistics, in which they indicate the similarities and differences between members of a language family.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South Slavic languages</span> Language family

The South Slavic languages are one of three branches of the Slavic languages. There are approximately 30 million speakers, mainly in the Balkans. These are separated geographically from speakers of the other two Slavic branches by a belt of German, Hungarian and Romanian speakers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shtokavian</span> Prestige dialect of the pluricentric Serbo-Croatian language

Shtokavian or Štokavian is the prestige supradialect of the pluricentric Serbo-Croatian language and the basis of its Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin standards. It is a part of the South Slavic dialect continuum. Its name comes from the form for the interrogative pronoun for "what" što. This is in contrast to Kajkavian and Chakavian.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kajkavian</span> South Slavic supradialect or language

Kajkavian is a South Slavic supradialect or language spoken primarily by Croats in much of Central Croatia and Gorski Kotar.

A pluricentric language or polycentric language is a language with several codified standard forms, often corresponding to different countries. Many examples of such languages can be found worldwide among the most-spoken languages, including but not limited to Chinese in the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Singapore; English in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, India, and elsewhere; and French in France, Canada, and elsewhere. The converse case is a monocentric language, which has only one formally standardized version. Examples include Japanese and Russian. In some cases, the different standards of a pluricentric language may be elaborated to appear as separate languages, e.g. Malaysian and Indonesian, Hindi and Urdu, while Serbo-Croatian is in an earlier stage of that process.

Autonomy and heteronomy are complementary attributes of a language variety describing its functional relationship with related varieties. The concepts were introduced by William A. Stewart in 1968, and provide a way of distinguishing a language from a dialect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Torlakian dialects</span> Group of South Slavic dialects

Torlakian, or Torlak, is a group of transitional South Slavic dialects of southeastern Serbia, Kosovo, northeastern North Macedonia, and northwestern Bulgaria. Torlakian, together with Bulgarian and Macedonian, falls into the Balkan Slavic linguistic area, which is part of the broader Balkan sprachbund. According to UNESCO's list of endangered languages, Torlakian is vulnerable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Languages of North Macedonia</span>

The official language of North Macedonia is Macedonian, while Albanian has co-official status. Macedonian is spoken by roughly two-thirds of the population natively, and as a second language by much of the rest of the population. Albanian is the largest minority language. There are a further five national minority languages: Turkish, Romani, Serbian, Bosnian, and Aromanian. The Macedonian Sign Language is the country's official sign language.

Language secessionism is an attitude supporting the separation of a language variety from the language to which it has hitherto been considered to belong, in order for this variety to be considered a distinct language. This attitude was first analyzed in Catalan sociolinguistics but it is attested in other parts of the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Croatian language</span> South Slavic language

Croatian is the standardised variety of the Serbo-Croatian pluricentric language mainly used by Croats. It is the national official language and literary standard of Croatia, one of the official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, the Serbian province of Vojvodina, the European Union and a recognized minority language elsewhere in Serbia and other neighbouring countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dialects of Serbo-Croatian</span>

The dialects of Serbo-Croatian include the vernacular forms and standardized sub-dialect forms of Serbo-Croatian as a whole or as part of its standard varieties: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian. They are part of the dialect continuum of South Slavic languages that joins through the transitional Torlakian dialects the Macedonian dialects to the south, Bulgarian dialects to the southeast and Slovene dialects to the northwest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Albanian–Eastern Romance linguistic parallels</span> Linguistic contact research

The Albanian–Eastern Romance linguistic parallels are subject of historical and contact linguistic research applied to the Albanian and Eastern Romance languages. It has also been studied to understand the history of Albanian and Eastern Romance speakers. The common phonological, morphological and syntactical features of the two language families have been studied for more than a century. Both are part of the Balkan sprachbund but there are certain elements shared only by Albanian and Eastern Romance languages that descended from Common Romanian. Aside from Latin, and from shared Greek, Slavic and Turkish elements, other characteristics and words are attributed to the Palaeo-Balkan linguistic base. Similarities between Eastern Romance and Albanian are not limited to their common Balkan features and the assumed common lexical items: the two language families share calques and proverbs, and display analogous phonetic changes, some of the latter especially shared between Tosk Albanian and Common Romanian.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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.
  2. ↑ "What is Sign Language?". Linguistic society. Archived from the original on 13 February 2018. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  3. ↑ Nakamura, Karen. (1995). "About American Sign Language." Deaf Resource Library, Yale University.
  4. ↑ 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.
  5. 1 2 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 . Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
  6. ↑ See e.g. P.H. Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, OUP 2007, p. 103.
  7. ↑ Chambers, J.K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN   978-0-521-59646-6.
  8. ↑ Crystal, David (2006). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.). Blackwell. p. 144. ISBN   978-1-405-15296-9.
  9. ↑ Bloomfield, Leonard (1935). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 51.
  10. ↑ Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics . New York: Macmillan. pp.  324–325.
  11. ↑ Chambers, J.K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 13–19, 89–91. ISBN   978-0-521-59646-6.
  12. ↑ 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. Archived 2014-08-27 at the Wayback Machine
  13. ↑ Радева, Василка (15 July 2018). Българският език през ХХ век. Pensoft Publishers. ISBN   9789546421135 – via Google Books.
  14. 1 2 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.
  15. ↑ Kinyarwanda at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  16. ↑ Hyman, Larry (15 September 2020). "In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga". Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar (1st ed.). Berlin: Language Science Press. pp. 253–276. ISBN   978-3-96110-275-4.
  17. ↑ Poletto, Robert E. (1998). Topics in RuNyankore Phonology. Ohio State University.
  18. 1 2 3 Angogo, Rachel. "LANGUAGE AND POLITICS IN SOUTH AFRICA". Studies in African Linguistics Volume 9, Number 2. elanguage.net. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
  19. ↑ Bellwood, Peter; Fox, James J.; Tryon, Darrell, eds. (2006). The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Canberra: ANU Press. doi: 10.22459/a.09.2006 . ISBN   978-1-920942-85-4.
  20. ↑ Tokelauan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  21. ↑ Tuvaluan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  22. ↑ Bø, I (1976). "Ungdom og naboland : en undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabospråkforståelsen". Rogalandsforskning. 4.
  23. ↑ 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.
  24. ↑ 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.
  25. ↑ Beswick, Jaine (2005). "Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities". Estudios de Sociolingüística. 6 (1): 39–64.
  26. ↑ Romanian language – Britannica Online Encyclopedia
  27. 1 2 Voigt, Stefanie (2014). "Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages within the Romance language family" (PDF). p. 113.
  28. ↑ Tomić, Olga Mišeska (2004). Balkan Syntax and Semantics. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 461. ISBN   978-90-272-2790-4.
  29. ↑ 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.
  30. ↑ Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria: WPLC. WPLC, Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria. 1997. p. 66.
  31. ↑ 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.
  32. ↑ Łabowicz, Ludmiła. "Gdzie "sicz", a gdzie "porohy"?! (ст. 15), Part II". Archived from the original on 1 May 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
  33. ↑ 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...
  34. 1 2 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.
  35. ↑ Language profile Macedonian Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine , UCLA International Institute
  36. ↑ Macedonian language Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine on UCLA
  37. ↑ Brown, E. K.; Asher, R. E.; Simpson, J. M. Y. (2006). Encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Elsevier. p. 647. ISBN   978-0-08-044299-0.
  38. ↑ Kevin Hannan (1996). Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia. Peter Lang. p. 3. ISBN   978-0-8204-3365-3.
  39. ↑ Kordić, Snježana (2024). "Ideology Against Language: The Current Situation in South Slavic Countries" (PDF). In Nomachi, Motoki; Kamusella, Tomasz (eds.). Languages and Nationalism Instead of Empires. Routledge Histories of Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge. pp. 167–179. doi:10.4324/9781003034025-11. ISBN   978-0-367-47191-0. OCLC   1390118985. S2CID   259576119. SSRN   4680766 . COBISS.SR   125229577. COBISS   171014403. Archived from the original on 10 January 2024. Retrieved 21 January 2024. p. 174: In the Slavic area, there is one instance of a significant asymmetric intelligibility: Slovenians understand Croats better (79.4%) than Croats understand Slovenians (43.7%).
  40. ↑ Christina Bratt Paulston (1988). International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 110. ISBN   9780313244841.
  41. ↑ "How Konkani Won the Battle for 'Languagehood'". www.meertens.knaw.nl. Retrieved 1 June 2021.
  42. ↑ Katsura, M. (1973). "Phonemes of the Alu Dialect of Akha". Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.3. 3 (3): 35–54.
  43. ↑ 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.
  44. ↑ Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya (2004). Ukrayna'daki Urum Türkleri ve Folkloru. Milli Folklor, 2004, Yıl. 16, S. 16, s. 59
  45. ↑ Sinor, Denis (1969). Inner Asia. History-Civilization-Languages. A syllabus. Bloomington. pp. 71–96. ISBN   978-0-87750-081-0.
  46. ↑ "Uzbek – the Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies".
  47. ↑ Katzner, Kenneth (2002). The languages of the world. Routledge. p. 105. ISBN   978-0-415-25003-0.
  48. ↑ Taagepera, Rein (1999). The Finno-Ugric republics and the Russian state. Routledge. p. 100. ISBN   978-0-415-91977-7.
  49. ↑ Xibe at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  50. ↑ "Ausbau and Abstand languages". ccat.sas.upenn.edu.
  51. ↑ "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" Archived 2008-12-17 at the Wayback Machine . Report from Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua about denomination and identity of Valencian.
  52. ↑ 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.
  53. ↑ 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.
  54. ↑ "Majlis Bahasa Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Malaysia (MABBIM)" [Malaysian language]. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 29 July 2022. Retrieved 6 February 2023.
  55. ↑ Adelaar, K. Alexander; Himmelmann, Nikolaus (7 March 2013). The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. Routledge. ISBN   9781136755095.
  56. ↑ 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
  57. ↑ 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.
  58. ↑ Sugiharto, Setiono (25 October 2008). "Indonesian-Malay mutual intelligibility?" . Retrieved 6 December 2019.(registration required)
  59. ↑ Gutman, Ariel (2018). Attributive constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Language Science Press. p. 1. ISBN   978-3-96110-081-1.
  60. ↑ 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.
  61. ↑ 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.
  62. ↑ "Dari/Persian/Tajik languages" (PDF).
  63. ↑ 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.
  64. ↑ 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
  65. ↑ 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 . Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. (ÖNB).
  66. ↑ 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.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.