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 intentional study or special effort.
It is generally used as the most important criterion for distinguishing languages from
dialects, although sociolinguistic factors are often also used.
Intelligibility between languages can be asymmetric, with speakers of one understanding more of
the other than speakers of the other understand of 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 For individuals to achieve moderate proficiency
or understanding in a language other than their first language typically requires considerable
time and effort through study and/or practical application.
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 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, and other
factors.
Mutually intelligible languages or varieties of one language
There is no formal distinction between two distinct languages and two varieties of a
single language, but linguists generally use mutual intelligibility as one of the primary
factors in deciding between the two cases.
Some linguists claim that mutual intelligibility is, ideally at least, the primary criterion
separating languages from dialects.
On the other hand, speakers of closely related languages can often communicate with each
other to a fair degree; thus there are varying degrees of mutual intelligibility, and often
other criteria are also used.
As an example, in the case of a linear dialect chain that shades gradually between varieties,
where speakers near the center can understand the varieties at both ends, but speakers at
one end cannot understand the speakers at the other end, the entire chain is often considered
a single language.
If the central varieties then 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.
In addition, 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 often no mutual intelligibility between geographically separated varieties; the same
is true of 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.
To deal with the conflict in cases such as Arabic, Chinese, and German, the term Dachsprache
is sometimes seen: Arabic, Chinese, and German are languages in the sociolinguistic sense
even though some speakers cannot understand each other without recourse to a standard
or prestige form.
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 not vice versa.
For example, Dutch speakers tend to find it easier to understand Afrikaans than vice versa
as a result of Afrikaans's simplified grammar, although the large number of false friends
between these languages can cause misunderstanding.
However, perhaps the most common reason for apparent asymmetric intelligibility is that
speakers of one variety have more exposure to the other than vice versa.
For example, speakers of Scottish English have frequent exposure to standard American
English through movies and TV programs, whereas speakers of American English have little exposure
to Scottish English; hence, American English speakers often find it difficult understanding
Scottish English or, especially, Scots, whereas Scots tend to have few problems understanding
standard American English.
Similarly, Quebec French speakers are more easily able to understand standard metropolitan
French than vice versa.
Danish and Swedish normally have low mutual intelligibility, but Swedes in the Öresund
region, across a strait from the Danish capital Copenhagen, understand Danish somewhat better.
In some cases it is hard to distinguish between mutual intelligibility and a basic knowledge
of other language.
Many Belarusian and Ukrainian speakers have extensive knowledge of Russian and use it
as a second language or lingua franca, or even as a first language in public or at work.
Thus they can easily understand Russian, whereas speakers of Russian often can understand Ukrainian
and Belarusian only partially.
Similarly, in Germany and Italy, standard German or Italian speakers have great difficulty
understanding the 'dialects' from regions other than their own, but virtually all "dialect"
speakers learn the standard languages in school and from the media.
Due to Danish rule, standardized written Norwegian was heavily influenced by Danish.
Additionally, people in Norway are more used to listening to speeches of diverse dialectal
backgrounds.
As a consequence, Norwegian Bokmål and Standard Danish are asymmetrically intelligible.
Speakers of Norwegian can understand Danish better than vice versa.
List of mutually intelligible languages Below is an incomplete list of fully and partially
mutually intelligible languages.
Written and spoken forms Afrikaans: Dutch
Azerbaijani: Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Turkish and Urum
Belarusian: Russian and Ukrainian Bulgarian: Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian
Crimean Tatar: Azerbaijani, Gagauz and Turkish Czech: Slovak, Polish
Danish: Norwegian and Swedish Dari: Persian
Dutch: Afrikaans West Frisian, German Estonian: Finnish
Finnish: Estonian, Karelian Gagauz: Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Turkish
and Urum Galician: Spanish, Portuguese
German language: Dutch Ilokano: Eastern Bontoc and Balangao
Irish: Scottish Gaelic Kazakh: Kyrgyz
Kinyarwanda: Kirundi Kirundi: Kinyarwanda
Kyrgyz: Kazakh Macedonian: Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian
Norwegian: Danish and Swedish Persian: Dari
Portuguese: Galician and Spanish Romanian: Italian and Spanish
Russian: Belarusian and Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Rusyn
Slovak: Czech, Polish Slovenian: Serbo-Croatian
Spanish: Galician and Portuguese Swedish: Danish and Norwegian
Tokelauan: Tuvaluan Torlakian: Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian
Turkish: Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz and Urum
Tuvaluan: Tokelauan Ukrainian: Belarusian and Russian
Urum: Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz and Turkish
Zulu: Ndebele, Xhosa, and Swazi Spoken forms only
Dari: Tajik.
German: Yiddish Lao: Thai
Persian: Tajik Polish: Ukrainian and Belarusian
Tajik: Persian and Dari.
Thai: Lao Yiddish: German
Written forms only Icelandic: Faroese
Dialects or registers of one language sometimes considered separate languages
Hindustani: Hindi, Urdu—the standard forms are separate registers of structurally the
same language, with Hindi written in Devanagari and Urdu mainly in a Perso-Arabic script
Malay: Indonesian, Malaysian Serbo-Croatian: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin,
and Serbian—the standard forms are structurally the same language, and hence mutually intelligible,
spoken and written.
They are considered separate languages only for political reasons.
Tagalog: Filipino—the national language of the Philippines, Filipino, is based almost
entirely on the Luzon dialects of Tagalog See also
References
External links Harold Schiffman, "Linguists' Definition:
mutual intelligibility".
University of Pennsylvania.