Mutual intelligibility

Last updated

Statue of the first Czechoslovak president Tomas Garrigue Masaryk (whose mother was Czech and father Slovak) with Czech flag on the left and Slovak flag on the right. There is a high level of mutual intelligibility between the closely related West Slavic languages Czech and Slovak (the Czech-Slovak languages). Tomas Garrigue Masaryk statue - Army Museum Zizkov.jpg
Statue of the first Czechoslovak president Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (whose mother was Czech and father Slovak) with Czech flag on the left and Slovak flag on the right. There is a high level of mutual intelligibility between the closely related West Slavic languages Czech and Slovak (the Czech–Slovak languages).

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.

Contents

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]

As a criterion for identifying separate languages

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.

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. [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]

North Germanic

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]

South Slavic

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.

List of mutually intelligible languages

Romance

Germanic

Slavic

Indo-Aryan

Turkic

Austronesian

Niger–Congo

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">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">Slovene language</span> South Slavic language spoken primarily in Slovenia

Slovene or Slovenian is a Western member of South Slavic languages, which belong to the Balto-Slavic branch of the Indo-European language family. Most of its 2.5 million speakers are the inhabitants of Slovenia, majority of them ethnic Slovenes. As Slovenia is part of the European Union, Slovene is also one of its 24 official and working languages. Its syntax is highly fusional and characterized by dual grammatical number. Two accentual norms are used. Its flexible word order is often adjusted for emphasis or stylistic reasons, although basically it is a SVO language. It has a T–V distinction: the use of the V-form demonstrates a respectful attitude towards superiors and the elderly, while it can be sidestepped through the passive form.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian</span> Comparison of registers of the Serbo-Croatian language

Standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian are different national variants and official registers of the pluricentric Serbo-Croatian language.

A standard language is a language variety that has undergone substantial codification of its grammar, lexicon, writing system, or other features. Typically, the varieties that undergo standardization are those associated with centers of commerce and government. By processes that linguistic anthropologists call "referential displacement" and that sociolinguists call "elaboration of function", these varieties acquire high social prestige. As a sociological effect of these processes, most users of a standard dialect—and many users of other dialects of the same language—come to believe that the standard is inherently superior to, or consider it the linguistic baseline against which to judge, the other dialects.

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":

Montenegrin is a normative variety of the Serbo-Croatian language mainly used by Montenegrins and is the official language of Montenegro. Montenegrin is based on the most widespread dialect of Serbo-Croatian, Shtokavian, more specifically on Eastern Herzegovinian, which is also the basis of Standard Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian.

<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.

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

Chakavian or Čakavian is a South Slavic supradialect or language spoken by Croats along the Adriatic coast, in the historical regions of Dalmatia, Istria, Croatian Littoral and parts of coastal and southern Central Croatia, as well as by the Burgenland Croats as Burgenland Croatian in southeastern Austria, northwestern Hungary and southwestern Slovakia as well as few municipalities in southern Slovenia on the border with Croatia.

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 mainland 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.

<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 Vojvodina</span>

Languages and dialects spoken in the Serbian province of Vojvodina include South Slavic languages, West Slavic languages (Slovak), East Slavic languages (Rusyn), Hungarian, Romanian, Romani, and others.

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.

Slavic microlanguages are literary linguistic varieties that exist alongside the better-known Slavic languages of historically prominent nations. The term "literary microlanguages" was coined by Aleksandr Dulichenko in late 1970s; it subsequently became a standard term in Slavistics.

<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.

References

  1. 1 2 Tweedie, Gregory; Johnson, Robert. "Listening instruction and patient safety: Exploring medical English as a lingua franca (MELF) for nursing education" . Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  2. 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.
  3. ↑ "What is Sign Language?". Linguistic society. Archived from the original on 13 February 2018. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  4. ↑ Nakamura, Karen. (1995). "About American Sign Language." Deaf Resource Library, Yale University.
  5. ↑ 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.
  6. 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.
  7. ↑ See e.g. P.H. Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, OUP 2007, p. 103.
  8. ↑ Chambers, J.K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN   978-0-521-59646-6.
  9. ↑ Tamburelli, Marco (2021). "Taking taxonomy seriously in linguistics: Intelligibility as a criterion of demarcation between languages and dialects". Lingua. 256: 103068. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103068. S2CID   233800051.
  10. ↑ Crystal, David (2006). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.). Blackwell. p. 144. ISBN   978-1-405-15296-9.
  11. ↑ Bloomfield, Leonard (1935). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 51.
  12. ↑ Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics . New York: Macmillan. pp.  324–325.
  13. ↑ Chambers, J.K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 13–19, 89–91. ISBN   978-0-521-59646-6.
  14. ↑ 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
  15. ↑ Радева, Василка (15 July 2018). Българският език през ХХ век. Pensoft Publishers. ISBN   9789546421135 – via Google Books.
  16. 1 2 Voigt, Stefanie (2014). "Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages within the Romance language family" (PDF). p. 113.
  17. ↑ Beswick, Jaine (2005). "Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities". Estudios de Sociolingüística. 6 (1): 39–64.
  18. ↑ 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.
  19. ↑ "Comparação Português e Castelhano". www.omniglot.com.
  20. ↑ "Algumas observações sobre a noção de língua portuguesa" (PDF).
  21. ↑ Romanian language – Britannica Online Encyclopedia
  22. ↑ Tomić, Olga Mišeska (2004). Balkan Syntax and Semantics. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 461. ISBN   978-90-272-2790-4.
  23. ↑ 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.
  24. ↑ Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria: WPLC. WPLC, Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria. 1997. p. 66.
  25. ↑ 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.
  26. ↑ Bø, I (1976). "Ungdom og naboland : en undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabospråkforståelsen". Rogalandsforskning. 4.
  27. ↑ 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.
  28. ↑ Kaufmann, Manuel (2006). "English in Scotland — a phonological approach". GRIN. p. 21. Archived from the original on 4 August 2020. Retrieved 5 April 2020.
  29. ↑ 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.
  30. ↑ 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...
  31. ↑ Language profile Macedonian Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine , UCLA International Institute
  32. 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.
  33. ↑ Brown, E. K.; Asher, R. E.; Simpson, J. M. Y. (2006). Encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Elsevier. p. 647. ISBN   978-0-08-044299-0.
  34. ↑ Macedonian language Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine on UCLA
  35. ↑ Kevin Hannan (1996). Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia. Peter Lang. p. 3. ISBN   978-0-8204-3365-3.
  36. ↑ Łabowicz, Ludmiła. "Gdzie "sicz", a gdzie "porohy"?! (ст. 15), Part II". Archived from the original on 1 May 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
  37. ↑ "UCLA Language Materials Project: Language Profile". Lmp.ucla.edu. Archived from the original on 9 November 2011. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
  38. ↑ 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%).
  39. ↑ "The Linguistic Innovation Emerging From Rohingya Refugees." by Christine Ro. Forbes. 13 September 2019.
  40. ↑ "How Konkani Won the Battle for 'Languagehood'". www.meertens.knaw.nl. Retrieved 1 June 2021.
  41. ↑ "Language Materials Project: Turkish". UCLA International Institute, Center for World Languages. February 2007. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 26 April 2007.
  42. 1 2 G (2012). "çuvaşlar: The Internal Classification & Migration of Turkic Languages".
  43. ↑ Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya (2004). Ukrayna'daki Urum Türkleri ve Folkloru. Milli Folklor, 2004, Yıl. 16, S. 16, s. 59
  44. ↑ Sinor, Denis (1969). Inner Asia. History-Civilization-Languages. A syllabus. Bloomington. pp. 71–96. ISBN   978-0-87750-081-0.
  45. ↑ ceeres.uchicago.edu
  46. ↑ "Uzbek – the Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies".
  47. ↑ "Morpho-syntax of mutual intelligibility in the Turkic languages of Central Asia - Surrey Morphology Group". www.smg.surrey.ac.uk. Retrieved 15 December 2022.
  48. ↑ 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.
  49. ↑ Tokelauan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  50. ↑ Tuvaluan at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  51. ↑ Orukpe, Abel (3 November 2016). "The Linguistic Characteristic Of Esan Language: Towards Its Empowerment and Development" . Retrieved 7 July 2021.
  52. ↑ Kinyarwanda at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  53. 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.
  54. ↑ 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.
  55. ↑ Poletto, Robert E. (1998). Topics in RuNyankore Phonology. Ohio State University.
  56. ↑ Katsura, M. (1973). "Phonemes of the Alu Dialect of Akha". Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.3. 3 (3): 35–54.
  57. ↑ 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.
  58. ↑ Katzner, Kenneth (2002). The languages of the world. Routledge. p. 105. ISBN   978-0-415-25003-0.
  59. ↑ Taagepera, Rein (1999). The Finno-Ugric republics and the Russian state. Routledge. p. 100. ISBN   978-0-415-91977-7.
  60. ↑ Christina Bratt Paulston (1988). International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 110. ISBN   9780313244841.
  61. ↑ Xibe at Ethnologue (22nd ed., 2019) Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  62. ↑ "Ausbau and Abstand languages". ccat.sas.upenn.edu.
  63. 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.
  64. ↑ Chuka Obiorah (12 December 2013). "Twi Language – Akan's Popular Dialect". Buzz Ghana. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  65. ↑ Gutman, Ariel (2018). Attributive constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Language Science Press. p. 1. ISBN   978-3-96110-081-1.
  66. ↑ 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.
  67. ↑ 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.
  68. ↑ "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.
  69. ↑ 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.
  70. ↑ 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.
  71. ↑ "Majlis Bahasa Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Malaysia (MABBIM)" [Malaysian language]. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 29 July 2022. Retrieved 6 February 2023.
  72. ↑ Adelaar, K. Alexander; Himmelmann, Nikolaus (7 March 2013). The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. Routledge. ISBN   9781136755095.
  73. ↑ 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
  74. ↑ "Who is Malay?". July 2005. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016.
  75. ↑ 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.
  76. ↑ Sugiharto, Setiono (25 October 2008). "Indonesian-Malay mutual intelligibility?" . Retrieved 6 December 2019.(registration required)
  77. ↑ "Dari/Persian/Tajik languages" (PDF).
  78. ↑ 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.
  79. ↑ 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
  80. ↑ 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).
  81. ↑ 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.
  82. ↑ "Moldovan (limba moldovenească / лимба молдовеняскэ)".
  83. ↑ "Santiago Villafania | Pangasinan Poet". archive.ph. 6 December 2012. Archived from the original on 6 December 2012. Retrieved 4 December 2019.

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.