Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:55:11.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of mutual intelligibility between Germanic languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2017

Charlotte Gooskens  and
Femke Swarte
Charlotte Gooskens
Affiliation:
Center for Language and Cognition, University of Groningen, P.O. Box. 716, 9722 AS Groningen, The Netherlands. c.s.gooskens@rug.nl
Femke Swarte
Affiliation:
Center for Language and Cognition, University of Groningen, P.O. Box. 716, 9722 AS Groningen, The Netherlands. femkeswarte@hotmail.com
Get access

Abstract

We report on a large-scale investigation of the mutual intelligibility between five Germanic languages: Danish, Dutch, English, German and Swedish. We tested twenty language combinations using the same uniform methodology, making the results commensurable for the first time. We first tested both written and spoken language by means of cloze tests. Next we calculated linguistic distance at the levels of lexicon, orthography, phonology, morphology and syntax. We also quantified exposure and attitudes towards the test languages. Finally, we carried out a regression analysis to determine the relative importance of these linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors for the mutual intelligibility between Germanic languages. The extra-linguistic predictor exposure was the most significant factor in predicting intelligibility in the Germanic language area. The effect of attitude was very small. Lexical distance, orthographic and phonetic distances were the most important linguistic predictors of intelligibility.

Keywords

language attitudelanguage exposurelinguistic distancesmutual intelligibilityreceptive multilingualism
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 40 , Special Issue 2: Receptive Multilingualism , October 2017 , pp. 123 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abraham, Roberta G. & Chapelle, Carol A.. 1992. The meaning of cloze test scores: An item difficulty perspective. The Modern Language Journal 7, 468–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bø, Inge. 1978. Ungdom og naboland. En undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabospråksforståelsen [Youth and neighboring country: An investigation of the influence of school and TV on inter-Scandinavian comprehension]. Stavanger: Rogalandsforskning.Google Scholar
Börestam Uhlmann, Ulla. 1991. Språkmöten och mötesspråk i Norden [Language meetings and meeting languages in the Nordic countries] (Nordisk språksekretariats rapporter 16). Oslo: Nordisk språksekretariat.Google Scholar
Bormuth, John. 1969. Factor validity of cloze tests as measures of reading comprehension ability. Reading Research Quarterly 4, 358–365.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, Kurt. 2007. Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages: A description of a scenario. In ten Thije, Jan D. & Zeevaert, Ludger (eds.), Receptive Multilingualism, 25–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof & Åkesson, Katarina Lundin. 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 speakers of Danish, Swedish and Norwegian]. Copenhagen: Nordiska ministerrådet.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Gerard & Gooskens, Charlotte. 2009. Skriftsprogets rolle i den dansk-svenske talesprogsforståelse [The role of written language in spoken Danish–Swedish intelligibility]. Språk och Stil 19, 105–123.Google Scholar
Giesbers, Charlotte. 2008. Dialecten op de grens van twee talen; een dialectologisch en sociolinguïstisch onderzoek in het Kleverlands dialectgebied [Dialects on the border of two languages: A dialectological and sociolinguistic investigation in the Kleverlandic dialect area]. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 1993. Probleme und Methoden der Dialektometrie: Geo-linguistik in Globaler Perspective [Problems and methods of dialecto-metry: Geolinguistics in a global perspective]. In Viereck, Wolfgang (ed.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Dialectologists 1, 37–81. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Golubović, Jelena. 2016. Mutual Intelligibility in the Slavic Language Area (Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte. 2006a. Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of inter-Scandinavian intelligibility. In van de Weijer, Jeroen & Los, Bettelou (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 23, 101–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte. 2006b. Hvad forstår svenskere og nordmænd bedst – engelsk eller dansk? [What do Swedes and Norwegians understand best: English or Danish?]. Tidskrift for Sprogforskning 4 (1), 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte & van Bezooijen, Renée. 2006. Mutual comprehensibility of written Afrikans and Dutch: Symmetrical or asymmetrical. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21, 543–557.Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte, van Bezooijen, Renée & van Heuven, Vincent J.. 2015. Mutual intelligibility of Dutch–German cognates by children: The devil is in the detail. Linguistics 53, 255–283.Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte & van Heuven, Vincent J.. 2017. Measuring cross-linguistic intelligibility in the Germanic, Romance and Slavic language groups. Speech Communication 89, 25–36.Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte, van Heuven, Vincent J., Golubović, Jelena, Schüppert, Anja, Swarte, Femke & Voigt, Stefanie. 2017. Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe. Ms., University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1966. Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry 36, 280–297.Google Scholar
Ház, Éva. 2005. Deutsche und Niederländer. Untersuchungen zur Möglichkeit einer unmittelbaren Verständigung (Philologia 68). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Hedquist, Rolf. 1985. Nederländares förståelse av danska och svenska. En språkpedagogisk undersökning med utnyttjande av likheterna mellan språken [Dutchmen's understanding of Danish and Swedish: A linguistic pedagogical investigation with reference to similarities between the languages]. Umeå: Umeå universitet.Google Scholar
Hedquist, Rolf & Strangert, Eva. 1989. Hur svenskar uppfattar och förstår nederländska ord [How Swedes perceive and understand Dutch words]. Umeå: Umeå universitet, Institutionerna för fonetik och nordiska språk.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert. 2004. Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences Using Levenshtein Distance (Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert & Nerbonne, John. 2006. De analyse van taalvariatie in het Nederlandse dialectgebied: Methoden en resultaten op basis van lexicon en uitspraak [An analysis of language variation in the Netherlandic dialect area: Methods and results based on lexicon and pronunciation]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 11, 218–257.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert, Swarte, Femke, Schüppert, Anja & Gooskens, Charlotte. 2014. Modeling intelligibility of written Germanic languages: Do we need to distinguish between orthographic stem and affix variation? Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26 (4), 361–394.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert, Swarte, Femke, Schüppert, Anja & Gooskens, Charlotte. 2017. Modeling intelligibility of written Germanic languages: How do we represent syntactical variation? Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx029. Published online by Oxford University Press, 19 June 2017.Google Scholar
Hilton, Nanna Haug, Gooskens, Charlotte & Schüppert, Anja. 2013. The influence of non-native morphosyntax on the intelligibility of a closely related language. Lingua 137, 1–18.Google Scholar
Hirst, Graeme & Feiguina, Ol'ga. 2007. Bigrams of syntactic labels for authorship discrimination of short texts. Literary & Linguistic Computing 22, 405–419.Google Scholar
Impe, Leen. 2010. Mutual Intelligibility of National and Regional Varieties of Dutch in the Low Countries. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Jörgensen, Nils & Kärrlander, Eva. 2001. Grannspråksförståelse i Öresundsregionen år 2000. Gymnasisters hörförståelse [Mutual intelligibility in the Öresundsregion year 2000: The listening comprehension of secondary school students]. Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Keshavarz, Mohammad Hossein & Salimi, Hossein. 2007. Collocational competence and cloze test performance: A study of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17, 81–92.Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz. 1967. ‘Abstand languages’ and ‘ausbau languages’. Anthropological Linguistics 9 (7), 29–41.Google Scholar
Kuhlemeier, Hans, van denBergh, Huub & Melse, Leijn. 1996. Attitudes and achievements in the first year of German language instruction in Dutch secondary education. The Modern Language Journal 80, 494–508.Google Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian, van Bezooijen, Renée & Gooskens, Charlotte. 2008. Linguistic determinants of the intelligibility of Swedish words among Danes. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2, 83–100.Google Scholar
Lundin, Katarina & Christensen, Robert Zola. 2001. Grannspråksförståelse i Öresundsregionen år 2000. Gymnasisters läsförståelse [Mutual intelligibility in the Öresund region year 2000: The reading comprehension of secondary school students]. Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Maurud, Øivind. 1976. Reciprocal comprehension of neighbour languages in Scandinavia: An investigation of how well people in Denmark, Norway and Sweden understand each other's languages. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 20, 49–71.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John & Heeringa, Wilbert. 2010. Measuring dialect differences. In Schmidt, Jürgen Erich & Auer, Peter (eds.), Language and Space: Theories and Methods (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science), 550–567. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John & Wiersma, Wybo. 2006. A measure of aggregate syntactic distance. In Nerbonne, John & Hinrichs, Erhard (eds.), Linguistic Distances Workshop at the Joint Conference of International Committee on Computational Linguistics and the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, July 2006, 82–90. Stroudsburg: PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schüppert, Anja. 2011. Origin of Asymmetry: Mutual Intelligibility of Spoken Danish and Swedish (Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Swarte, Femke. 2016. Predicting the (Mutual) Intelligibility of Germanic Languages from Linguistic and Extra-linguistic Factors (Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van Bezooijen, Renée & Gooskens, Charlotte. 2005. How easy is it for speakers of Dutch to understand spoken and written Frisian and Afrikaans, and why? Linguistics in the Netherlands 22, 13–24.Google Scholar
van Bezooijen, Renée, Gooskens, Charlotte & Kürschner, Sebastian. 2012. Deens is makkelijker voor Friezen dan voor Nederlanders – feit of fabel? [Danish is easier to understand for Frisians than for Dutchmen – fact or fairytale?]. In Boersma, Piter, Jensma, Goffe Th. & Salverda, Reinier (eds.), Philologia Frisica, 286–298. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
Vanhove, Jan. 2014. Receptive Multilingualism across the Lifespan: Cognitive and Linguistic Factors in Cognate Guessing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Fribourg.Google Scholar