Misplaced Pages

#313686

24-448: The concept of mutual intelligibility is vague. More important, it can be difficult for non-native speakers to distinguish one language from another similar one. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a language: for instance some languages share writing systems but are spoken differently, while others are identical when spoken but are written using different alphabets. For example, different "dialects" of Chinese use

48-443: A country who speak the "native" language of a different country, some of whom may be bilingual . Also, an inherited language may evolve and perhaps absorb some of the characteristics or terms of the new area's predominant language. In cases such as these, it becomes even more difficult to identify specific languages. When speakers have a foreign accent, they are often perceived to be less intelligent and are less likely to be hired. It

72-607: 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. 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

96-496: 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

120-552: Is perception in the USA that only English speakers are American and only non-Americans are non-English-speakers. It is suspected that this assumption began because states would have "official" languages for the purposes of book publishing and therefore for the purposes of education, so intelligence would come to be associated with speaking the language that was written. Because of this idea, there are also often social benefits which result from being able to speak English. A prime example of this

144-511: Is somewhat looked down upon because those living in areas of frequent code-switching seem to develop a sort of language loyalty. Another example of the difference between language borders and political borders is the spread of languages via colonialism, causing languages to be spoken in multiple, not necessarily adjacent countries. Although language borders and political borders do not always agree, there have been many instances where political leadership has attempted to enforce language borders. In

168-533: Is spoken in most Central American and South American countries, but also in Spain . There are subtle but recognizable differences between the dialects, but there are different dialects even within the country of Spain. (In many cultures there also slight differences between the versions of the language, both spoken and written (" registers ") used in different contexts: for example when talking to one's boss and talking to one's friends.) There can also be people within

192-442: Is the case between Afrikaans and Dutch . It is generally easier for Dutch speakers to understand Afrikaans than for Afrikaans speakers to understand Dutch. (See Afrikaans § Mutual intelligibility with 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

216-436: 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. Asymmetric intelligibility refers to two languages that are considered partially mutually intelligible, but for various reasons, one group of speakers has more difficulty understanding

240-438: Is the prevalence of bilingualism near the U.S.–Mexican border, which also indicates the porosity of the border and illustrates the difficulty of drawing a "border" around all speakers of a given language, especially because there is not usually much correlation between ethnicity and language. Such common bilingualism leads to the practice of code-switching , or the changing freely between languages while speaking although this trait

264-576: Is the same with an accent from a peripheral area, rather than the accent from the urbanized core: a peripheral person is typically perceived as speaking a "less correct" by those who are more educated, while those who are not as educated do not perceive any difference in the "correctness". Colonial histories could also help this phenomenon. A well-known example of a language border is the border between Romance and Germanic languages that stretches through Belgium , France , Switzerland , and Italy . Language borders do not always reflect political borders;

SECTION 10

#1732772513314

288-630: The varieties of Chinese , and parts of the Romance , Germanic and Slavic families in Europe. Terms used in older literature include dialect area ( Leonard Bloomfield ) and L-complex ( Charles F. Hockett ). 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, but Swedes in

312-576: 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

336-684: The Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez on the border with the United States, social efforts have been made to curb the amount of American influence taking place—but at the same time, as in other foreign cultures, the class benefits of English proficiency are acknowledged and to this end schools teach in English and many television channels are in English. The use of Breton and Welsh has historically been discouraged by French and British governments respectively. There are also instances of intolerance to

360-422: 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

384-518: 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 ,

408-401: 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

432-801: The later years of the union. Additionally, Norwegian assimilated a considerable amount of Danish vocabulary as well as traditional Danish expressions. As a consequence, spoken mutual intelligibility is not reciprocal. 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: 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

456-607: 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 . Almost all linguists use mutual intelligibility as the primary linguistic criterion for determining whether two speech varieties represent

480-749: 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. Sign languages are not universal and usually not mutually intelligible, 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

504-608: The same characters with the same meanings, but these can be pronounced very differently in different varieties. Japanese also uses large numbers of Kanji characters (of Chinese origin) to mean the same as in Chinese , but they often have different "readings" (yomi) some of which may be pronounced as in Chinese while others are totally different. There are often also shared terms between two languages even between languages that have nothing to do with each other. For example, Spanish

SECTION 20

#1732772513314

528-476: The same or different languages. 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

552-454: The speaking of Native American languages at some schools, thus forcing those students to create small communities in which they can speak their native language, thereby creating "language boundaries" on a very small scale. Examples like these illustrate the impact that language boundaries can have on cultural boundaries, even if they are not necessarily one and the same. Mutual intelligibility In linguistics , mutual intelligibility

576-521: The tendency to correlate language with nationality is a common error that seems to have arisen during the period of 19th century European expansion (e.g., the term Anglo in Mexico and the southeastern U.S., or the term Angrez – literally, "English" – in North India). The usage of a particular language can reflect positively or negatively on its speaker depending upon the situation. For example, there

#313686