Does instruction about phonological correspondences contribute to the intelligibility of a related language?

Abstract

This paper investigates whether instruction about phonological correspondences between the native and a closely related language contributes to the intelligibility of this closely related language. Previous research has shown that closely related languages can be mutually intelligible to a certain degree (cf. Gooskens, 2007). Little is known about methods for improving the intelligibility of a closely related language. In this paper we focus on improving the intelligibility of spoken Frisian for Dutch speakers. In a 50-minute instruction session, participants got information about the most frequent sound correspondences between Dutch and Frisian, e.g. /sk/ in Frisian is often /sx/ in Dutch. The results of the intelligibility test show no significant improvement, neither at the text level, nor at the word level. Further research could focus on other language combinations, but also on a longer time span of intervention and other linguistic factors, such as unknown vowels.

The early learning of interlingual correspondence rules in receptive multilingualism

“…More recently, Bergsma et al (2014) taught twelve Dutch-speaking 11-to 12-year-olds the eight most common Frisian-Dutch sound correspondences for 50 minutes but observed no measurable improvement in receptive listening skills in Frisian compared to a control group.…”

“…What little research exists on interlingual correspondence rule learning focuses on the effects of explicit instruction. Hedquist (1985, cited in Bergsma, Swarte, & Gooskens, 2014) observed substantial improvements in the receptive Swedish skills of Dutch-speaking participants after 10 hours of instruction in lexical, phonological and orthographic differences between Dutch and Swedish. More recently, Bergsma et al (2014) taught 12 Dutch-speaking 11- to 12-year-olds the eight most common Frisian–Dutch sound correspondences for 50 minutes, but observed no measurable improvement in receptive listening skills in Frisian compared to a control group.…”

“…While intervention studies like Hedquist’s (1985) and Bergsma’s et al (2014) remain a desideratum in multilingualism pedagogy, what is of interest in this article is not whether explicit instruction in interlingual correspondence rules improves receptive multilingualism skills; rather, the goal of this study was to investigate whether participants can discover systematic interlingual correspondences themselves during the early stages of receptive multilingualism without being explicitly taught the relevant rules.…”

‘Kinsto it Frysk ferstean?’

“…Writing on the Swiss context, Lüdi (2007), for instance, affirmed that "an asymmetry between productive and receptive competence" should foster plurilingual communication. Similarly, Berthele (2007) claimed that intercomprehension is a skill which needs practice (see, for instance, Bergsma, Swarte, & Gooskens, 2014), and that misunderstandings are normal and common in this kind of communicative interaction, but also that these are corrected as the conversation continues and the participants become aware of previous mistakes (see also Grin, 2008). Others have opted for taking advantage of intelligibility to the fullest, by suggesting receptive multilingualism, or the possibility of holding a conversation in which participants speak different languages, as a possible successful strategy for communication in multilingual settings (Blees et al, 2014; see also Beerkens & Ten Thije, 2011;Belmar, 2019b;Belmar & Pinho, 2020;Rehbein, Ten Thije, & Verschik, 2012;Ten Thije & Zeevaert, 2007).…”

“…This percentage is extremely high and would suggest that intelligibility between Dutch and Frisian would suffice for far more than simple conversations (Swarte, Hilton, & Gooskens, 2013 suggest that 38% intelligibility may be enough to understand directions). Bergsma et al (2014) conducted an experiment with Dutch speakers to test whether instruction about phonological correspondences between the two languages could contribute to intelligibility. Participants completed two intelligibility tests: one before the instruction and one after.…”