Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mutual intelligibility

Mutual intelligibility refers to the extent to which speakers of one language variety can comprehend speakers of another related variety without prior instruction, formal study, or bilingual exposure.^[1]^[2] This phenomenon arises from shared linguistic features such as lexicon, phonology, and syntax in genetically related languages, enabling partial or full understanding that distinguishes dialects from separate languages, though the boundary remains gradient rather than absolute.^[3]^[4] Despite its utility in dialectology and language classification, mutual intelligibility is often asymmetric, meaning comprehension flows more readily in one direction than the reciprocal, as documented in empirical tests between Scandinavian languages where Danes exhibit greater understanding of Swedish than Swedes do of Danish due to phonological and exposure differences.^[5] Key predictors include structural linguistic distance—measured via Levenshtein distance for phonetics or cognate ratios for vocabulary—alongside extralinguistic elements like media contact and speaker attitudes, which can enhance or impede comprehension independently of genetic relatedness.^[3]^[6] Measurement typically involves objective tasks such as word recognition, sentence translation, or text comprehension scores, revealing high intelligibility among Romance languages like Spanish and Portuguese (around 50-80% at lexical levels) but lower rates across broader families.^[7]^[4] Notable applications extend to language policy, such as assessing dialect continua in Europe or constructed interlanguages in Slavic contexts, though controversies persist over its primacy as a demarcation criterion, given that societal factors like standardization and prestige often override raw intelligibility in defining "language" status.^[8]^[2] Empirical research underscores causal realism in these dynamics, prioritizing quantifiable data from controlled experiments over subjective claims, with studies consistently showing that orthographic divergence exacerbates asymmetries more than spoken forms alone.^[9]^[1]

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Principles

Mutual intelligibility refers to the capacity of speakers of one language variety to comprehend speakers of another closely related variety without prior formal instruction or extensive exposure, relying primarily on inherent linguistic similarities such as shared vocabulary and structure.^[5] This phenomenon, sometimes termed "inherited intelligibility," arises from genetic relatedness within language families, enabling partial understanding even among distinct but proximate languages or dialects.^[3] A core principle is that mutual intelligibility exists on a continuum rather than as a binary state, varying by degree from near-complete comprehension to minimal recognition, influenced by the extent of divergence in phonological, lexical, and grammatical features.^[5] It can manifest symmetrically, where comprehension levels are reciprocal—as observed in high mutual understanding between Czech and Slovak speakers (approximately 93% and 95% in cloze tests)—or asymmetrically, with one direction yielding higher intelligibility due to imbalances in language contact or structural complexity, such as Portuguese speakers understanding Spanish more readily than the reverse.^[5]^[3] Intelligibility is shaped by linguistic factors, including lexical similarity (e.g., cognate percentages), phonetic and orthographic distances, and syntactic alignment, which determine baseline comprehension independent of external influences.^[3] Extra-linguistic elements, such as prior passive exposure through media or migration and speaker attitudes toward the other variety, modulate these effects, with exposure emerging as the dominant predictor in empirical studies of Germanic languages.^[5]^[3] These principles underscore that mutual intelligibility reflects both objective linguistic proximity and subjective contextual variables, rather than a fixed linguistic boundary.

Measurement Methods

Mutual intelligibility is assessed through experimental protocols designed to quantify comprehension between speakers of related languages or dialects, distinguishing between subjective and objective approaches. Subjective methods, such as opinion tests, require listeners to rate their perceived ease of understanding after hearing short speech samples, typically on a Likert scale from 1 (incomprehensible) to 5 (fully comprehensible). These tests are rapid to administer and useful for large-scale surveys but are prone to biases from extralinguistic factors like cultural attitudes or self-perceived linguistic competence.^[10]^[11] Objective functional tests evaluate actual comprehension accuracy, often preferred for their reliability in capturing intrinsic linguistic similarity. At the lexical level, participants identify or translate isolated words or key terms embedded in carrier phrases or nonsense sentences, providing scores based on the percentage of correct responses. Supra-lexical tests extend to sentences or passages, incorporating tasks like answering multiple-choice comprehension questions, translating segments, or performing cloze procedures where obscured words (e.g., replaced by beeps in audio) must be selected from options. For example, a 2017 study on 16 Germanic, Slavic, and Romance languages used spoken cloze tests with standardized B1-level texts, where native speakers of each variety listened to beeped fragments twice and chose missing words from on-screen arrays, calculating mutual intelligibility as the mean percentage correct across 12 segments per text.^[5]^[11] Functional tests at the sentence level correlate more strongly with overall communicative success than lexical ones, as they account for prosody, syntax, and contextual cues absent in word-only assessments; studies report low correlations (often below 0.5) between the two, supporting prioritization of supra-lexical methods for closely related varieties. Bidirectional testing is standard to detect asymmetry, with scores computed separately for each direction using groups of naive listeners (e.g., those reporting minimal prior exposure on self-assessments) to minimize confounds from bilingualism or media influence.^[5]^[11] Computational proxies, such as Levenshtein distance for phonological similarity or conditional entropy on phonetic/orthographic corpora, offer automated estimates of potential intelligibility without human participants, applied in analyses of West-Slavic languages to predict comprehension via information theory metrics. These are advantageous for scalability in low-resource settings but diverge from human behavioral data, as they overlook cognitive processing and thus serve best as correlates rather than direct measures.^[12]

Factors Affecting Intelligibility

Mutual intelligibility between languages is influenced by both linguistic and extralinguistic factors, with empirical studies demonstrating that shared structural features generally enhance comprehension while divergences hinder it.^[3]^[5] Linguistic factors primarily determine the baseline potential for intelligibility. Phonetic and phonological distances, which measure differences in sound inventories and pronunciation patterns, significantly reduce comprehension in spoken forms; for instance, greater phonetic divergence correlates with lower scores in cloze tests among Germanic languages.^[3] Lexical distance, reflecting vocabulary overlap, emerges as a key predictor, with higher shared cognates facilitating recognition across Romance, Slavic, and Germanic pairs.^[3]^[5] Orthographic differences affect written intelligibility, as irregular spellings exacerbate mismatches even in related languages.^[3] Grammatical factors, such as morphological and syntactic variations, play a lesser role compared to lexicon and phonetics, though complex divergences in inflection or word order can impede full understanding.^[3] Overall, smaller cophenetic distances—aggregating these linguistic metrics—predict higher intelligibility within language family branches, as seen in correlations of r = -0.75 for Germanic and r = -0.86 for Slavic varieties.^[5] Extralinguistic factors modulate linguistic baselines, often introducing asymmetries. Exposure through prior contact, media, or education is the strongest predictor, outweighing pure linguistic similarity; for example, it explains why Portuguese speakers comprehend Spanish better than vice versa due to greater unilateral familiarity.^[3]^[5] Listener attitudes exert minimal influence, with regression analyses showing negligible effects on test performance.^[3] Cultural or psychological biases may subtly affect self-reported comprehension, but controlled experiments prioritize objective measures like word or sentence recognition to isolate these.^[3] In receptive multilingualism scenarios, such as Danish-Swedish interactions, extralinguistic familiarity sustains partial understanding despite phonetic challenges.^[5]

Typology

Symmetric and Asymmetric Forms

Symmetric mutual intelligibility refers to the reciprocal understanding between speakers of two linguistic varieties, where the degree of comprehension is approximately equal in both directions.^[5] This form is often observed in closely related dialects or standardized languages with minimal divergence, such as Czech and Slovak, where listeners from each side achieved comprehension scores of 92.7% and 95.0% respectively in functional intelligibility tests.^[5] Asymmetric mutual intelligibility occurs when speakers of one variety comprehend the other more effectively than vice versa, despite shared genetic and typological features.^[5] This imbalance can stem from linguistic factors, such as differences in phonological reduction, lexical retention, or grammatical simplification in one variety, as well as extralinguistic influences like unequal exposure through media or migration.^[13] For instance, in Romance languages, Portuguese speakers understood Spanish at 67.2%, compared to 47.5% for Spanish speakers understanding Portuguese, attributed partly to Portuguese's conservative phonology aiding decoding of Spanish but not reciprocally.^[5] Empirical studies across language families confirm asymmetry's prevalence. In Germanic languages, Danes comprehended Swedish at 56%, outperforming Swedes' 44% comprehension of Danish, even among listeners with minimal prior exposure.^[5] Among Slavic languages, Slovenian speakers grasped Croatian texts at 79.4% in cloze tests, far exceeding Croatians' 43.7% for Slovenian, with similar disparities in spoken modalities (Slovene-to-Croatian outperforming by significant margins, t = -6.561, p < 0.001).^[5]^[13] These patterns highlight how asymmetry challenges simplistic views of relatedness, necessitating directed testing rather than assuming reciprocity.^[13]

Intelligibility in Sign Languages

Sign languages, numbering over 300 worldwide, typically display low mutual intelligibility across distinct varieties, akin to unrelated spoken languages, due to their independent historical development within deaf communities despite the shared visual-gestural modality.^[14] National sign languages such as American Sign Language (ASL) and British Sign Language (BSL) exhibit near-zero comprehension without prior exposure, as signers rely on language-specific lexicons, grammars, and conventions rather than universal gestures.^[15] This contrasts with gestural communication, which signers from diverse backgrounds can employ for basic exchange but does not equate to linguistic mutual intelligibility.^[16] Within proposed sign language families, intelligibility increases due to shared historical roots and lexical borrowing. For instance, the BANZSL family—encompassing BSL, Auslan (Australian Sign Language), and New Zealand Sign Language—features varieties with substantial mutual comprehension, often classified as dialects rather than separate languages based on empirical data showing high lexical overlap and narrative understanding.^[17] Lexical similarity, measured via adapted Swadesh lists, serves as a proxy for potential intelligibility; James Woodward's 1970s analyses placed ASL and Langue des Signes Française (LSF) at approximately 30% similarity, below thresholds for practical comprehension.^[18] Direct comprehension studies confirm asymmetric and limited cross-language understanding. In a 2015 investigation of Flemish Sign Language (VGT) narratives, Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) signers achieved 61% comprehension, outperforming French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) signers, attributed to geographic proximity, shared mouthings from Dutch, and iconic elements like classifiers.^[19] A 2023 lexical matching experiment with NGT signs yielded median accuracies of 78.7% for native NGT users, 62.8% for VGT signers, 60.6% for LSFB signers, and 53.7% for Chinese Sign Language (CSL) signers, with relative scores highlighting lexical overlap (e.g., 78% VGT-LSFB) and iconicity as facilitators, though exposure to foreign signing yielded no significant gains.^[20] Regional dialects within a single sign language, such as BSL varieties, show higher but variable intelligibility, influenced by signer demographics and contact frequency.^[21] Influencing factors mirror those in spoken languages but incorporate modality-specific elements: genetic relatedness reduces linguistic distance, while iconicity provides marginal aid in isolated signs but falters in syntactic structures; historical contact and attitudes toward "foreign" varieties modulate reported comprehension; and mouthings tied to ambient spoken languages can asymmetrically boost understanding in multilingual regions.^[20] These dynamics underscore that mutual intelligibility in sign languages stems from empirical linguistic convergence rather than inherent visual universality, challenging assumptions of modality-driven transparency.^[19]

Receptive Multilingualism

Receptive multilingualism refers to a communicative strategy in which interlocutors each use their preferred language while relying on mutual intelligibility for comprehension, without converging on a shared code such as a lingua franca or code-switching.^[22]^[23] This mode presupposes partial overlap in linguistic structures, vocabulary, and phonology between the varieties involved, enabling receptive skills—primarily listening or reading—to bridge gaps in production.^[24] Unlike symmetric mutual intelligibility, where comprehension is reciprocal, receptive multilingualism frequently manifests asymmetrically, with one party's understanding exceeding the other's due to factors like phonological divergence or exposure disparities.^[5]^[25] Empirical studies highlight its prevalence among closely related languages within the same family, such as the Germanic and Slavic groups. In the Scandinavian context, speakers of Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish often engage in "semicommunication," where each produces in their native tongue but decodes the input via receptive competence honed by geographic proximity and media exposure.^[24] For instance, Norwegians typically exhibit higher comprehension of both Danish and Swedish than vice versa, attributed to Norwegian's intermediate phonological position between Danish's glottal reinforcement and Swedish's pitch accent.^[26]^[25] Similarly, in the Dutch-German border region, interlocutors sustain interactions by speaking their own language, with intelligibility rates reaching 70-90% in controlled tests for lexical and syntactic elements, though pronunciation poses the primary barrier.^[27] Factors influencing efficacy include linguistic distance, prior contact, and situational context, as measured through functional tests like cloze procedures or speech comprehension tasks.^[1] Research indicates that receptive multilingualism thrives in low-stakes, informal settings but diminishes under cognitive load or with reduced exposure, such as in isolated dialects.^[28] In Slavic varieties like Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian—historically unified as Serbo-Croatian—receptive strategies persist despite political divergence, with interpreters leveraging asymmetric comprehension to facilitate dialogue, achieving up to 85% word recognition in spoken form.^[29] Pedagogical applications, such as in European language curricula, promote RM training to exploit these innate affinities, though outcomes vary by modality, with written intelligibility often surpassing spoken due to orthographic similarities.^[1] Overall, RM underscores how partial mutual intelligibility enables functional communication without full bilingualism, contingent on empirical linguistic relatedness rather than normative classifications.^[30]

Linguistic Applications

Distinguishing Languages from Dialects

Mutual intelligibility constitutes the principal empirical criterion in linguistics for demarcating dialects from distinct languages, with varieties classified as dialects when speakers achieve reciprocal comprehension exceeding a functional threshold—typically around 70% word recognition without prior exposure—versus separate languages when intelligibility falls below this level.^[31] This structural benchmark prioritizes communicative functionality over nomenclature, as implemented in resources like Glottolog, which enumerates 7,592 primary languages based on mutual unintelligibility among variants.^[32] Measurements often employ functional tests, such as cloze procedures or word translation tasks, to quantify inherent intelligibility isolated from extrinsic factors like bilingualism.^[32] Despite its objectivity, the criterion encounters limitations in application, particularly asymmetry—wherein comprehension flows unidirectionally due to phonological simplicity or cultural exposure—and data scarcity, as comprehensive testing covers only a fraction of global varieties.^[32] Dialect continua exacerbate this, featuring gradual intelligibility decline across geographic chains, such as the Dutch-Flemish-German spectrum, where no discrete boundary emerges despite lexical similarities below 50% divergence in some segments.^[32] Alternative proxies, like normalized Levenshtein distance (LDN) from lexical cognates, propose thresholds (e.g., LDN > 0.51 equating to 1,000–1,600 years of separation) to operationalize distinctions absent direct intelligibility data, outperforming subjective ethnolinguistic inventories that over-differentiate low-divergence pairs by up to 3.1%.^[32] Empirical cases illustrate divergences from pure intelligibility-based classification. In Scandinavia, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish exhibit 70–90% mutual intelligibility in controlled tests, enabling cross-national communication, yet persist as codified languages due to standardized orthographies and state-level institutionalization since the 19th century.^[5] Conversely, Sinitic topolects like Mandarin and Cantonese demonstrate negligible mutual intelligibility—driven by phonological disparities, including Cantonese's 6–9 tones against Mandarin's 4—functionally akin to Romance languages, but are designated dialects under a politicized "Chinese" umbrella to foster national cohesion, overriding linguistic evidence.^[33] Such instances reveal how sociopolitical imperatives, including nationalism post-1800s European standardization movements, frequently supersede intelligibility, rendering it a causal but subordinate factor in real-world taxonomies.^[32]

Dialect Continua

A dialect continuum comprises a chain of linguistic varieties distributed geographically such that adjacent varieties demonstrate substantial mutual intelligibility, whereas varieties separated by greater distances exhibit progressively reduced comprehension.^[1] This gradual variation arises from localized innovations in phonology, lexicon, and grammar that accumulate over space, preserving core structural similarities among neighbors while eroding them farther afield.^[34] Dialect continua underscore the limitations of mutual intelligibility as a binary delineator between dialects and languages, as no abrupt threshold exists; instead, intelligibility forms a cline influenced by exposure, context, and speaker accommodation.^[1] In the West Germanic continuum, Low German dialects historically bridged Dutch and High German, with neighboring base dialects maintaining mutual intelligibility through shared features like similar vowel systems and syntax, though distant endpoints—such as Standard Dutch and Standard German—achieve only partial spoken comprehension without prior familiarity.^[34] Standardization efforts since the 16th century, including the influence of printing and political borders, have disrupted this continuum by elevating prestige varieties and reducing exposure to intermediates.^[34] The North Germanic continuum exemplifies high residual intelligibility among mainland Scandinavian varieties: Danish, Norwegian (particularly Bokmål), and Swedish speakers often comprehend one another at rates exceeding 80% in asymmetric listening tasks, rooted in common Old Norse origins and ongoing lexical overlap exceeding 90%.^[35] Divergence intensifies toward insular forms like Icelandic and Faroese, where mutual intelligibility drops below 30% due to conservative phonology and isolation since the 9th century.^[35] South Slavic Shtokavian dialects, encompassing what were unified as Serbo-Croatian until the 1990s, illustrate a disrupted continuum where pre-20th-century varieties across Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Montenegro showed near-complete mutual intelligibility among adjacent speakers, sustained by shared innovations like the neo-shtokavian reflex (e.g., /č/ for earlier /št/). Political fragmentation post-1991 imposed orthographic and lexical divergences, yet baseline comprehension persists at 95% or higher for exposed speakers, highlighting how external factors can overlay linguistic continuity. Arabic spoken varieties form a partial continuum, notably in the Levant where urban dialects from Damascus to Jerusalem exhibit mutual intelligibility through shared bedouin substrate and phonological traits like /q/ realization as /ʔ/, though broader spans (e.g., Moroccan to Gulf) reduce it to under 50% without Modern Standard Arabic mediation.^[36] Diglossia with Classical Arabic further complicates pure dialectal assessment, as formal registers enable cross-varietal bridging absent in monolingual spoken exchanges.^[37]

Limitations as a Sole Criterion

Mutual intelligibility operates on a continuum rather than as a binary distinction, complicating its use as a definitive boundary between dialects and languages. In dialect continua, such as those found in historical Arabic varieties or Low German dialects, adjacent speech forms exhibit high mutual intelligibility due to gradual phonetic and lexical shifts, yet distant varieties at the continuum's ends show negligible comprehension. This gradient nature precludes a clear threshold for separation, as arbitrary cutoffs—such as the proposed 70% or 80% lexical similarity benchmarks—fail to consistently align with linguistic boundaries.^[1]^[38]^[31] Asymmetry in intelligibility further undermines its reliability as a sole metric. For instance, speakers of standardized varieties often comprehend non-standard or related dialects more readily than vice versa, due to factors like exposure through media or education, as observed in pairs like Spanish and Portuguese or Dutch and Afrikaans. This one-directional comprehension, where receptive skills from the "prestige" side dominate, distorts assessments and does not reflect symmetric communication essential for practical language use.^[2]^[39] Sociolinguistic and political considerations override mutual intelligibility in classifications, rendering it insufficient alone. Varieties with substantial intelligibility, such as the former Serbo-Croatian (now divided into Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian), were reclassified as distinct languages following the 1990s Yugoslav breakup, driven by ethnic nationalism rather than linguistic divergence. Similarly, Scandinavian languages like Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish maintain separate status despite partial cross-comprehension, bolstered by independent literary traditions and national identities established since the 19th century. These cases illustrate how institutional standardization, orthographic differences, and identity politics—rather than intelligibility—often determine language status.^[2]^[40] Measurement challenges compound these issues, as intelligibility tests yield variable results influenced by methodology, participant familiarity, speech rate, and context. Functional tests, such as cloze procedures or translation tasks, often produce subjective outcomes without universal standardization, and prior exposure can artificially inflate scores. Linguists like Charlotte Gooskens have noted that while controlled experiments provide data, they rarely capture real-world variability, leading to inconsistent applications in classification.^[1]^[41]

Nationalism and Identity Politics

In nation-building efforts, mutual intelligibility between related language varieties has frequently been overridden by political decisions to codify distinct national languages, thereby fostering ethnic cohesion and state legitimacy. Historical processes of standardization, often driven by elites during the 19th and 20th centuries, prioritized symbolic differentiation over empirical linguistic continuity, as seen in the elevation of dialects to full languages to align with emerging nation-states. This instrumentalization reflects a causal dynamic where political fragmentation precedes and shapes linguistic classification, rather than vice versa, enabling the construction of imagined communities unified by purportedly unique tongues.^[42] The post-Yugoslav breakup exemplifies this interplay, where Serbo-Croatian—a pluricentric variety with high mutual intelligibility across its Shtokavian base—was politically redivided into Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin standards following the conflicts of 1991–1995. Empirical assessments indicate spoken comprehension rates of 85–95% between these varieties, comparable to intra-national dialect differences, yet nationalist policies mandated separate orthographies, vocabularies, and grammars to symbolize sovereignty and ethnic divergence. For instance, Croatian purism introduced neologisms to replace shared Serbo-Croatian terms, reducing perceived similarity despite underlying structural unity. This separation, enacted through constitutional declarations in newly independent states like Croatia (1991) and Bosnia (1992), prioritized identity assertion over communicative practicality, with mutual intelligibility persisting informally among speakers.^[43]^[5] In Scandinavian contexts, nationalism similarly decoupled language status from intelligibility metrics during 19th-century independence movements. Danish, Norwegian (Bokmål and Nynorsk varieties), and Swedish exhibit partial to high asymmetric mutual intelligibility—Norwegian speakers often comprehend 80–90% of Danish and Swedish speech, while the reverse is lower due to phonological divergences—yet were formalized as separate languages to underpin distinct monarchies and cultural narratives post-1814 Norwegian-Swedish union dissolution. Norwegian purists, drawing on rural dialects, rejected Danish-influenced Riksmål to assert autochthonous identity, illustrating how ideological commitments to folklore and anti-Danish sentiment engineered linguistic boundaries beyond what intelligibility data would suggest.^[5] Such practices in identity politics underscore tensions between empirical linguistics and socio-political utility, where denying intelligibility bolsters in-group solidarity but can hinder regional cooperation. In cases like these, academic classifications favoring mutual intelligibility as a dialect criterion have clashed with state-endorsed separations, highlighting how nationalism reframes continua as discrete entities to serve realist goals of power consolidation.^[44]

Empirical vs. Ideological Classifications

Classifications of linguistic varieties as distinct languages or dialects frequently diverge between empirical evaluations grounded in mutual intelligibility metrics and ideological imperatives shaped by nationalism or state policy. Empirical approaches employ standardized tests such as cloze procedures, where listeners fill in blanks in unfamiliar texts, or translation tasks assessing lexical and grammatical overlap, yielding quantifiable comprehension rates that reflect cognitive processing without prior exposure.^[11] For instance, asymmetries in comprehension can arise from phonetic divergence or lexical borrowing, but high scores—often above 80%—indicate practical unity, prioritizing functional communication over abstract boundaries.^[45] In contrast, ideological classifications elevate sociopolitical identity, as when national independence prompts the elevation of dialects to language status, irrespective of intelligibility data, reflecting causal influences like post-colonial fragmentation rather than linguistic evolution.^[40] A prominent case is the post-1991 dissolution of Yugoslavia, where Serbo-Croatian was politically fragmented into Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin standards, despite empirical evidence of near-identity. A 2008 experimental study involving native Croatian speakers translating Serbian texts revealed 96.09% lexical convergence and 99.79% grammatical identity, with minimal morphological variations (e.g., 3.2% noun gender shifts), concluding the varieties are linguistically indistinguishable.^[46] Similarly, in Scandinavia, Danish, Norwegian Bokmål, and Swedish maintain separate status tied to sovereign states formed after the 19th-century dissolutions of unions, even as cloze tests show 57-63% spoken intelligibility between Danish and Swedish among minimally exposed listeners, enabling routine cross-border comprehension.^[5] For Hindi and Urdu, partition-era ideologies separated them along religious lines—Sanskritized Hindi for Hindu identity and Persianized Urdu for Muslim—despite computational phonetic analyses confirming high mutual intelligibility in core Hindustani structures, with divergences confined to formal registers.^[47] These divergences highlight how ideological classifications, often amplified by institutional narratives favoring fragmentation for cultural preservation, supersede empirical continuity, complicating objective taxonomy.^[2]

Case Studies of Divergence

The disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s led to the political fragmentation of Serbo-Croatian into distinct standard languages—Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin—despite their high mutual intelligibility stemming from a shared Shtokavian dialect base.^[46] Standard varieties of these languages exhibit near-complete spoken and written comprehension, with differences primarily in vocabulary influenced by historical borrowing (e.g., Croatian favoring Germanic terms, Serbian Slavic ones) and scripts (Latin for Croatian/Bosnian, Cyrillic optional for Serbian).^[5] This separation was driven by nationalist movements emphasizing ethnic identities, as evidenced by post-1991 constitutional recognitions of separate languages in newly independent states, overriding linguistic continuity that had unified communication under one pluricentric standard during the socialist era.^[43] In contrast, the 1993 dissolution of Czechoslovakia resulted in Czech and Slovak being codified as separate languages, even though empirical measures show asymmetric but substantial mutual intelligibility, with Slovaks understanding Czech at 95% and Czechs understanding Slovak at 92.7% in controlled speech comprehension tasks.^[13] Pre-split bilingualism via shared media and education sustained this, but subsequent national media isolation has diminished comprehension among younger cohorts born after 1993, who report lower exposure and thus reduced passive understanding without formal study.^[48] Political incentives for sovereignty post-Velvet Divorce prioritized distinct national standards over linguistic proximity, illustrating how state boundaries can accelerate divergence in receptive multilingualism where it previously persisted.^[49] Scandinavian languages—Danish, Norwegian (Bokmål), and Swedish—demonstrate divergence through sustained classification as separate despite considerable mutual intelligibility, particularly in written forms where lexical overlap exceeds 80% and spoken comprehension reaches 50-80% depending on accents and exposure.^[5] Historical unions (e.g., Denmark-Norway until 1814, Sweden-Norway until 1905) fostered dialect continua, yet 19th-century nationalism codified distinct standards to symbolize independence, with Norway developing Bokmål from Danish roots and Nynorsk from rural dialects.^[50] This political framing as separate languages persists despite functional inter-Scandinavian communication in professional and media contexts, underscoring how national identity can maintain linguistic boundaries against empirical evidence of partial intelligibility.^[51]

Empirical Examples

Indo-European Languages

Empirical investigations into mutual intelligibility within the Indo-European family reveal pronounced variation tied to phylogenetic proximity, with high comprehension in adjacent varieties and sharp declines across branches. A 2017 study tested spoken intelligibility using cloze procedures among 1,833 young, educated listeners from 16 European languages, yielding mean scores of 40% for Germanic pairs, 37% for Romance, and 28% for Slavic overall, after controlling for minimal exposure. Asymmetries frequently arise from unidirectional exposure or phonological barriers, though linguistic distance—measured via Levenshtein distances on cognates—correlates strongly with outcomes (r = -0.76 to -0.88 across families).^[52]^[5] In the Germanic branch, Mainland Scandinavian languages exhibit robust mutual understanding; Danish listeners comprehended 57% of Swedish utterances, and Swedish listeners 63% of Danish, dropping to 44-56% in minimal-exposure subgroups. Continental pairs fare lower: Germans understood 31% of Dutch speech, and Dutch speakers 25% of German, reflecting lexical and prosodic divergences despite shared West Germanic roots. English, a distant outlier due to Norman influence and isolation, scores below 20% with Dutch or German absent familiarity, underscoring how substrate effects erode ancestral similarities over centuries.^[52]^[5] Romance languages display asymmetric patterns favoring peripheral varieties; Portuguese speakers grasped 77% of Spanish content, versus 37% reciprocally, with minimal-exposure figures at 62% and 36%, attributable to Spanish's broader media penetration and lexical conservatism in Portuguese. Italian-Spanish pairs achieve around 50% in functional tests, aided by Vulgar Latin retention in morphology (e.g., infinitive -ar/-er endings) and SVO syntax, though French diverges sharply due to Gallo-Romance innovations, yielding under 20% with Italian or Spanish. Romanian, isolated by Balkan influences, averages 13% outgoing but 45% incoming comprehension, highlighting geography's role in divergence.^[52]^[53] Slavic branches show the family's highest intra-group peaks, as in West Slavic: Czech-Slovak sentence intelligibility reached 93-95%, with word scores exceeding 94%, sustained by political unity until 1993 and minimal phonological drift. Cross-subgroup tests between West (Czech, Slovak, Polish) and South Slavic (Croatian, Serbian, Slovene) average 50-70% for words but drop to 40-60% for sentences; notably, Slovenes understood 79% of Croatian (versus 44% reverse), while Bulgarian lagged at 20-30% due to eastward admixtures. These gradients align with Common Slavic divergence around 500-1000 CE, where prosody and case systems preserve more signals than in divergent Romance or Germanic lineages.^[13]^[52] Inter-branch comparisons, untested in these protocols but inferred from distance metrics, approach negligible levels; English-Italian cognates (e.g., father/padre) aid isolated guesses but yield under 10% functional uptake, as millennia of independent evolution—Proto-Indo-European split circa 4000 BCE—obscure syntax and phonotactics. Exposure via global English elevates its receptive edge, yet intrinsic barriers dominate, affirming mutual intelligibility as a continuum rather than binary, modulated by empirical rather than prescriptive boundaries.^[5]

Germanic Varieties

The Germanic language family, comprising North and West branches (with East Germanic extinct), exhibits varying degrees of mutual intelligibility among its varieties, influenced by linguistic divergence since Proto-Germanic around 500 BCE and factors like exposure and phonetic shifts. North Germanic languages, including Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, demonstrate the highest mutual intelligibility within the family, often exceeding 50% in spoken comprehension tests, due to shared vocabulary and grammar retained from Old Norse. For instance, a 2017 study across European language pairs found Danish-Swedish spoken intelligibility at 57% for Danes understanding Swedish and 63% vice versa, with minimal asymmetry after controlling for exposure.^[5] Norwegian varieties, particularly Bokmål, further enhance this continuum, enabling speakers to comprehend written forms across the three with relative ease, though spoken Danish's stød (glottal stop) and vowel reductions create challenges for Swedes, leading to asymmetric understanding where Norwegians and Swedes fare better with Danish than Danes do reciprocally.^[54] In West Germanic, mutual intelligibility is lower and more asymmetric, averaging around 30% in controlled tests between Dutch and German, reflecting High German consonant shifts (e.g., Dutch "appel" vs. German "Apfel") that diverged the languages post-6th century CE. Dutch speakers with minimal exposure understood German at 25%, while Germans scored 31% on Dutch, with border dialects like Low Saxon bridging gaps in regions such as the Netherlands-Germany frontier.^[5] English, also West Germanic, shows limited reciprocal intelligibility with continental varieties—speakers understand less than 20% of Dutch or German without prior contact—due to Norman French influence post-1066 CE and insular evolution, though its global exposure as a second language inflates incoming comprehension scores above 80% in tests.^[54] Frisian, the closest relative to English, retains some lexical overlap (e.g., Frisian "skip" akin to English "ship"), but mutual spoken intelligibility remains below 30%, constrained by phonological and syntactic differences.^[3] Empirical predictors of intelligibility across these varieties prioritize extra-linguistic exposure over pure linguistic distance, with lexical similarity (e.g., 60-80% cognate rates between Dutch-German) aiding but insufficient alone; phonetic and orthographic distances explain variances in spoken vs. written modes, where written forms consistently outperform spoken by 10-20%.^[3] Varieties like Afrikaans (derived from Dutch) maintain high intelligibility with Dutch (over 90% lexical overlap), functioning as a dialect continuum in South Africa, while [Low German](/page/Low German) dialects exhibit partial comprehension with Dutch in northern Germany-Netherlands areas. Overall family mean intelligibility hovers at 40%, underscoring that while Germanic varieties form continua, full mutual understanding requires familiarity, not just genetic proximity.^[5]

Romance Varieties

The Romance languages, descending from Vulgar Latin spoken across the Roman Empire, exhibit varying degrees of mutual intelligibility influenced by geographic divergence, phonological evolution, and lexical retention. Ibero-Romance varieties like Spanish and Portuguese show the highest levels, with receptive intelligibility often exceeding 40% in empirical tests, while Gallo-Romance French and Eastern Romance Romanian demonstrate lower comprehension due to heavy substrate influences and sound shifts. Asymmetries are common, where speakers of more conservative varieties understand innovative ones better, as seen in lexical overlap from shared Latin roots comprising 70-90% of core vocabulary in closer pairs.^[5]^[55] Spanish and Portuguese exhibit strong mutual intelligibility, particularly in written form, with lexical similarity scores averaging 84% across corpora like Europarl and Wikipedia texts. Spoken comprehension is asymmetric: Portuguese speakers achieve mean receptive scores of about 47% for Spanish, outperforming Spanish speakers' understanding of Portuguese by a statistically significant margin, attributed to Portuguese's retention of Latin vowels and syllable structure versus Spanish's reductions. Empirical studies confirm this lopsidedness persists even with minimal exposure, enabling receptive multilingualism in border regions.^[5]^[55] Italian and Spanish, from Italo-Dalmatian and Western Romance branches, display high pairwise intelligibility, with lexical similarities around 77% and successful receptive scores above 40% for Italian listeners processing Spanish. Italian's phonological conservatism aids comprehension of Spanish, though asymmetries favor Italian and Portuguese speakers grasping Spanish over the reverse, linked to divergent consonant shifts in Spanish. Qualitative analyses highlight shared syntactic features like subject-verb-object order and post-nominal adjectives, facilitating partial understanding without formal study.^[5]^[55]^[7] French stands apart due to extensive Frankish and Gallo substrate effects, resulting in low mutual intelligibility with other Romance varieties; mean receptive scores for non-French Romance speakers hover below 20%, often requiring prior exposure from education or media. Its nasal vowels, liaison phenomena, and lexical shifts reduce comprehension from Italian or Spanish speakers, despite 68% lexical overlap with Spanish.^[5]^[55] Romanian, isolated by Slavic and Balkan influences, shows the lowest intelligibility with Western Romance languages, with lexical similarities to Italian at 67-68% but practical receptive scores averaging 12.5% for non-Romanian speakers. Romanian speakers, however, comprehend other Romance varieties better (around 45% mean), leveraging school-taught Latin and loanwords, though full mutual intelligibility remains impractical without adaptation.^[5]^[55]

Slavic Varieties

The Slavic languages, comprising East, West, and South branches, demonstrate mutual intelligibility that is markedly higher within subgroups than across them, as evidenced by functional testing methods such as cloze tests and word translation tasks. These tests measure receptive understanding without prior exposure, revealing structural and lexical divergences accumulated over centuries of separate development. For instance, phonological shifts, like the East Slavic akanye in Russian versus the distinct vowel systems in West Slavic tongues, contribute to asymmetric barriers, where speakers of more conservative varieties often comprehend innovative ones better.^[5] In the West Slavic group, Czech and Slovak exhibit near-complete mutual intelligibility, with average scores of 92.7% for Czech listeners understanding Slovak and 95.0% for Slovak listeners understanding Czech in large-scale web-based speech comprehension experiments involving over 1,000 participants. This proximity stems from shared grammar, vocabulary overlap exceeding 95% in core lexicon, and historical political unity until 1993, allowing unhindered communication akin to dialects. Polish, however, shows lower intelligibility with these, averaging 40.7% for Polish speakers understanding Slovak and 50.7% vice versa, due to innovations like the mazurzenie consonant shift and divergent case endings that obscure comprehension in isolated exposure.^[5]^[13] East Slavic languages, including Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian, display partial intelligibility influenced by extensive bilingual exposure in former Soviet contexts, though baseline receptive scores without training remain moderate; lexical similarity between Russian and Ukrainian hovers around 60-70%, enabling gist comprehension but frequent misinterpretation of idioms and syntax. Divergences arise from Ukrainian's Polonisms and phonetic softening absent in Russian, leading to asymmetries where Russian speakers, exposed to more Ukrainian media historically, understand it better than the reverse. Empirical functional tests are sparser here compared to West Slavic, but cross-branch comparisons place Russian-Ukrainian pairs above Polish-Bulgarian lows yet below Czech-Slovak highs.^[56] South Slavic varieties show high internal coherence in Serbo-Croatian (encompassing Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian), where Cyrillic-Latin script differences pose minimal spoken hurdles and vocabulary overlap nears 98%, permitting fluid semicommunication. Slovenian pairs with Croatian at 43.7% for Croatian listeners but 79.4% for Slovenian listeners, reflecting asymmetry from Slovenian's transitional phonology bridging West and South traits. Bulgarian and Macedonian, with analytic case loss and definite articles, achieve strong mutual understanding exceeding 80% in cloze tasks, but score poorly cross-branch, such as 15-17% average for Bulgarian with other Slavics, due to Balkan sprachbund influences alienating them from northern kin. Overall, inter-branch intelligibility drops below 30% in controlled tests, underscoring how geographic isolation and standardization efforts since the 19th century have entrenched divides despite Proto-Slavic roots around 500 CE.^[5]^[13]

Non-Indo-European Families

In non-Indo-European language families, mutual intelligibility is generally confined to closely related subgroups, with broader family-level comprehension hindered by extensive phonological, grammatical, and lexical divergence over thousands of years. Empirical assessments, often via lexical recognition or comprehension tests, reveal patterns where geographic proximity and recent contact enhance understanding within clusters, but ancient splits preclude it across branches. This contrasts with some Indo-European families, where standardization and shared substrates sometimes foster wider intelligibility. Within the Uralic family, Finnish and Estonian—both Finnic languages—exhibit partial lexical mutual intelligibility, as demonstrated by a word translation task involving 307 Finnish and 118 Estonian participants, where speakers recognized cognates despite phonological shifts and grammatical variances separating them since proto-Finnic times around 2,000 years ago.^[57] However, Hungarian, from the distant Ugric branch with a split from Finnic over 4,000 years ago, shows negligible spoken or lexical overlap with Finnish or Estonian, rendering comprehension near zero without study.^[58] The Turkic languages provide examples of subgroup-specific intelligibility, with Oghuz varieties like Turkish and Azerbaijani achieving 65-90% comprehension through high lexical similarity (often exceeding 80%) and reinforced by cross-border media exposure since the 20th century.^[59] Kipchak languages such as Kazakh and Kyrgyz reach 75-80% mutual understanding, benefiting from shared nomadic histories and recent political interactions post-1991 Soviet dissolution, while cross-branch pairs like Turkish and Kazakh fall below 40%, limited by divergent vowel harmony and syntax.^[59] In the Sino-Tibetan family's Sinitic branch, spoken mutual intelligibility between major varieties is effectively zero; monolingual Mandarin speakers cannot understand Cantonese, and vice versa, due to distinct tonal systems, phonemes, and vocabulary evolved separately over 2,000 years despite a common orthography aiding partial written access.^[60] Similarly, in the Niger-Congo family's expansive Bantu subgroup, intelligibility varies: Nguni languages like Zulu and Xhosa share partial comprehension from recent common ancestry around 1,500 years ago, but distant members such as Swahili (Northeast Bantu) and Zulu exhibit low mutual understanding, comparable to unrelated European languages, owing to substrate influences and independent lexical innovations during the Bantu expansion from 3,000-1,000 BCE.^[61] Austronesian languages show localized patterns, with Malay and Indonesian—standardized from the same 19th-century Malay base—maintaining high mutual intelligibility exceeding 80% in spoken and written forms, facilitated by trade lingua franca roles and post-colonial standardization efforts.^[62] In contrast, more divergent pairs like Indonesian and Tagalog share only scattered Austronesian cognates but lack functional comprehension, with understanding below 20% absent exposure.^[63]

References

[1]
[PDF] University of Groningen Mutual Intelligibility Gooskens, Charlotte
Mutual intelligibility means that if two related languages have symmetrical differences, one should be as intelligible to native listeners of the other as vice ...
[2]
Mutual intelligibility: The number one criterion? - Oxford Academic
Pioneers were Carl Voegelin and Zellig Harris, who suggested four methods for answering language / dialect questions, including mutual intelligibility testing.Missing: peer- | Show results with:peer-
[3]
Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of mutual intelligibility ...
Oct 5, 2017 · We report on a large-scale investigation of the mutual intelligibility between five Germanic languages: Danish, Dutch, English, German and Swedish.
[4]
(PDF) Mutual intelligibility - ResearchGate
Aug 23, 2022 · Mutual Intelligibility in the Slavic Language Area. Groningen: University of Groningen. Gooskens, Charlotte. 2013. Experimental ...
[5]
Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe
The best-documented case of asymmetric intelligibility is Danish-Swedish. Danes understand Swedish better than Swedes understand Danish (e.g. Gooskens, van ...
[6]
The Contribution of Linguistic Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely ...
Nov 23, 2010 · In the present investigation, results from intelligibility tests measuring the mutual intelligibility of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish were ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[7]
A Study on Mutual Intelligibility between Romance Languages
Feb 28, 2022 · A Study on Mutual Intelligibility between Romance Languages | Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities.
[8]
[PDF] Mutual intelligibility and Slavic constructed interlanguages
In this thesis, I will study the structure of two constructed Slavic interlanguages from different eras : Ruski Jezik, created by Juraj Križanić in the ...<|separator|>
[9]
Is diachronic lenition a factor in the asymmetry in intelligibility ...
Gooskens (2006) investigated contact and attitude with respect to their role in the asymmetrical mutual intelligibility relation. However, she found only ...
[10]
Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects experimentally tested
Our general conclusion is that the degree of mutual intelligibility can be determined by both opinion and functional tests. These two subjective measures are ...
[11]
Experimental Methods for Measuring Intelligibility of Closely Related ...
This chapter presents an overview of methods for measuring the intelligibility of closely related languages, and discusses their advantages and disadvantages.
[12]
The Measurement of Mutual Intelligibility between West-Slavic ...
Jun 11, 2018 · These methods are based on calculating the conditional entropy. The calculations are realized on the phonetic and graphemic planes of Czech, ...
[13]
Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slavic languages
Sep 18, 2015 · In the present study we tested the level of mutual intelligibility between three West Slavic (Czech, Slovak and Polish) and three South ...<|separator|>
[14]
Sign Language - National Geographic Education
Apr 9, 2024 · Today, there are more than 300 different sign languages in the world, spoken by more than 72 million deaf or hard-of-hearing people worldwide.
[15]
Do two deaf persons from different countries understand each other?
Oct 11, 2016 · Probably not. Sign languages from different countries are not mutually intelligible, like Russian and French sign languages.Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[16]
[PDF] universal constraints across sign languages: - single finger contact ...
It is important to distinguish between communication of signers and mutual intelligibility of sign languages. The former can and often does occur without ...
[17]
BSL, Auslan and NZSL: three signed languages or one?
The new data suggest that Auslan, BSL and NZSL should be considered as varieties or dialects of the same sign language, with an even higher degree of mutual ...<|separator|>
[18]
How mutually intelligible are different sign languages? - Reddit
Jun 8, 2021 · Woodward in the late 1970s stated that American SL (ASL) and French SL (LSF) are around 30% mutually intelligible, using the Swadesh list of words.How mutually intelligible are sign languages across the world?If I sign B.S.L. to an American deaf person would they understand ...More results from www.reddit.com
[19]
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0004
[20]
Lexical comprehension within and across sign languages of ...
May 31, 2023 · In this paper, I investigate one aspect of mutual intelligibility between four different sign languages: Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT), Flemish Sign ...
[21]
Do Signers Understand Regional Varieties of a Sign Language? A ...
The degree of mutual intelligibility of British Sign Language (BSL) regional varieties has been a subject of some debate. Recent research in which dyads of ...
[22]
Introduction: Receptive multilingualism | Nordic Journal of Linguistics
Oct 5, 2017 · RM refers to a language contact situation in which hearers' or readers' understanding of a non-native language is based on their skills in ...
[23]
(PDF) Receptive multilingualism - introduction - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · Receptive multilingualism - introduction ; 16(3) 248 –264 ; This article introduces and defines the notion · (LaRa) as a mode of multilingual ; a ...
[24]
Receptive Multilingualism in Germanic Languages
Danish (or another Scandinavian language) is obligatory as a foreign language in Icelandic compulsory schools. More recently, however, English has become ...
[25]
[PDF] University of Groningen Predicting the asymmetric intelligibility ...
Nov 12, 2019 · Abstract. The languages Danish and Swedish are so similar to each other that they are partially mutually intelligible.
[26]
[PDF] Introduction Ludger Zeevaert and Jan D. ten Thije Receptive ...
Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts. This volume reveals new perspectives from different theoretical frameworks on linguistic analyses ...
[27]
Receptive Multilingualism in Germanic Languages - ResearchGate
Sep 17, 2024 · A prerequisite for receptive multilingualism is mutual intelligibility between the languages of the interactants. To be able to communicate ...
[28]
(PDF) 8. Receptive Multilingualism - ResearchGate
Oct 21, 2019 · Receptive multilingualism involves languages and dialects which are typologically close, but can also take place in situations where an L3 is ...
[29]
(PDF) Receptive multilingualism and its relevance to translation ...
Aug 9, 2025 · This paper examines the phenomenon of receptive multilingualism where speakers of two different languages communicate through each speaking his/ ...
[30]
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781501507984-008/html
[31]
[PDF] A Possible Explanation of the 70% Mutual Intelligibility Threshold
A formal description of the difference: an empirical 70% threshold. In most cases, linguists reach a consensus on when the way people talk in a new region is a ...
[32]
How to Distinguish Languages and Dialects - MIT Press Direct
The more practical problem with the criterion of mutual intelligibility is that measurements are usually simply not available. ... language vs. dialect ...
[33]
[PDF] Language or Dialect — or Topolect? A Comparison of the Attitudes ...
Linguistically speaking, the mutual intelligibility criterion depends on phonology. The spoken language should always be the primary consideration, with ...<|separator|>
[34]
The West Germanic Dialect Continuum (Chapter 31)
Typically, only neighboring base dialects are mutually intelligible, while base dialects a great distance from one another are not. Low German varieties, Upper ...
[35]
The North Germanic Dialect Continuum (Chapter 32)
The modern North Germanic languages family consists of mutually intelligible languages spoken in mainland Scandinavia (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish)<|separator|>
[36]
The Levantine Dialect and other Arabic Dialects
Nov 17, 2020 · The Levantine dialect is not a single form of Arabic, but a continuum of dialects. There are several mutually intelligible dialects.
[37]
Are Arabic Dialects Mutually Intelligible? - Playaling
The short answer is: there's some mutual intelligibility, but it depends heavily on exposure, age, education, and context. From Gulf to Egyptian: Gulf Arabic ( ...
[38]
Counting Languages in Dialect Continua Using the Criterion of ...
This paper shows how it is possible to count languages vs. dialects if, for every pair of varieties, we are given whether they are mutually intelligible or ...
[39]
[PDF] Mutual Intelligibility between Closely Related Languages
Linguists have been interested in mutual intelligibility between closely re- lated language varieties since the middle of the previous century, and recently,.
[40]
Taking taxonomy seriously in linguistics: Intelligibility as a criterion of ...
namely that ...
[41]
Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe
Jul 15, 2017 · By means of a large-scale web-based investigation, we established the degree of mutual intelligibility of 16 closely related spoken languages ...<|separator|>
[42]
[PDF] Nation-Building, Ethnicity and Language Politics in Transition ...
This book, part of the ECMI/LGI series, focuses on nation-building, ethnicity, and language politics in transition countries, and is a result of cooperative ...
[43]
[PDF] serbo-croatian, 'czechoslovakian' and the breakup of state
Mutual intelligibility is, however, one of the more important criteria in ... first, primary, and most relevant political 'split' of Serbo-Croatian in the ...
[44]
Linguistic Nationalism and the Turkish Republic - IU ScholarWorks
Mutual intelligibility provides not only a common ground but a sense of solidarity. Th e alteration of that fundamental part of national identity has ...
[45]
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111134697-008/html
[46]
[PDF] To what degree are Croatian and Serbian the same language?
Thus the fact of mutual intelligibility is difficult to raise to the level of linguistic evidence in favor of linguistic identity, especially because of the ...Missing: split | Show results with:split
[47]
(PDF) Hindustani or Hindi vs. Urdu: A Computational Approach for ...
Nov 28, 2020 · In this paper, we presented the similarities and relatedness between Hindi and Urdu (that are mutually intelligible and major languages of ...
[48]
Czech and Slovak: languages or dialects?
Jan 5, 2023 · So while the 'mutual intelligibility' of Czech and Slovak may be changing with the post-Velvet Divorce generation, and while Slovaks may ...
[49]
Closely-related languages in contact: Czech, Slovak, “Czechoslovak”
Aug 6, 2025 · Czech and Slovak are close and mutually understandable languages (Nábělková 2007) . There is therefore no reason to expect any structural ...
[50]
The Scandinavian Languages - Germanic languages and literatures
Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian in their standard forms are mutually intelligible; that is, a person who knows one of the languages can read and understand the ...
[51]
Are the Nordic languages mutually understandable?
Dec 7, 2021 · There is some degree of mutual intelligibility in the Nordics, especially between languages that are part of the same language family.
[52]
[PDF] Mutual intelligibility between closely related language in Europe.
Jul 15, 2017 · The primary goal of the present research was to study the degree of cross-language intelligibility, both for written and for spoken language, ...
[53]
[PDF] A Study on Mutual Intelligibility between Romance Languages
Mutual intelligibility is the ability to understand languages without familiarity. Romance languages, originating from Vulgar Latin, have high mutual ...
[54]
Intelligibility of Germanic languages underestimated | News articles
Feb 22, 2016 · Danish and Swedish are the most mutually comprehensible, but German and Dutch are also mutually intelligible. English is the most widely ...
[55]
[PDF] On the Romance Languages Mutual Intelligibility - LREC
May 20, 2014 · Our study provides evidence to be used in the investigation of the written intelligibility, i.e., the ability of people writing in different.
[56]
[PDF] University of Groningen Mutual intelligibility in the Slavic language ...
Abstract: The purpose of this study was threefold: 1. To measure the linguistic distances among. Czech, Slovak, Polish, Croatian, Slovenian and Bulgarian on ...
[57]
Mutual intelligibility of Finnish and Estonian vocabulary
This paper reports on an investigation on Finnish-Estonian mutual intelligibility carried out by means of a word translation task among 307 Finnish and 118 ...Missing: study | Show results with:study
[58]
[PDF] Mutual Intelligibility of Finnish and Estonian Vocabulary Härmävaara ...
Abstract. This paper reports on an investigation on Finnish-Esto- nian mutual intelligibility carried out by means of a word transla-.
[59]
[PDF] Mutual Intelligibility among the Turkic Languages - Son Sesler
Turkish has about 65-90% intelligibility with Azeri. After a ... The intelligibility of Turkish and the Central Asian Turkic languages like Uzbek, Kazakh,.
[60]
Mutual Intelligibility of Sinitic Languages
Mutual Intelligibility of Sinitic Languages. March 6, ... As someone who speaks no Chinese languages at all, I've always been fascinated by the language vs. dialect distinction in spoken Chinese languages.
[61]
To what degree are the Bantu Languages mutually intelligible? For ...
Feb 12, 2016 · No. Swahili and Zulu are related (both are Bantu languages), but they are not at all mutually intelligible. They also have different phonologies ...Are Bantu languages mutually intelligible and to what extent? - QuoraAre Bantu languages mutually intelligible? Is it possible to ... - QuoraMore results from www.quora.com
[62]
Are Indonesian and Tagalog closer than what we know right now?
Nov 7, 2008 · They are closely related but not completely intelligible, although there are a lot of cognates and some degree of mutual intelligibility exists.
[63]
How Similar are Tagalog and Indonesian? - YouTube
Apr 23, 2020 · Indonesian and Tagalog are definitely not mutually intelligible. ... Austronesian language family, meaning that they developed from the ...