Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe

Abstract

By means of a large-scale web-based investigation, we established the degree of mutual intelligibility of 16 closely related spoken languages within the Germanic, Slavic and Romance language families in Europe. We first present the results of a selection of 1833 listeners representing the mutual intelligibility between young, educated Europeans from the same 16 countries where the test languages are spoken. Next, we present the data from a sub-group of listeners who had not learned the test language and had had minimal exposure to it. This allows us to investigate how well the listeners understand the test language on the basis of structural similarities between their own language and the test languages. Finally, we compare the results of the two data sets to the traditional genealogic characterisation of the three language groups. We expect the intelligibility results from the second group of listeners who had had minimal exposure to the test language to be a better reflection of the genealogical characterisation than the results from the larger group who had sometimes been exposed to the test language or had learned it at school. ARTICLE HISTORY

Learning English Through Out‐of‐School Exposure: How Do Word‐Related Variables and Proficiency Influence Receptive Vocabulary Learning?

“…They also found that, especially for younger learners, L1 word frequency predicted the test scores, whereas L2 word frequency predicted older learners’ scores. This was in line with the findings of studies concerning receptive multilingualism, that is, the ability of people to communicate in their own language with people who speak a closely related but unknown language (Gooskens et al., ). One of the strategies used in receptive multilingualism is cognate guessing, that is, guessing the meanings of words based on similarities with known cognates (Vanhove & Berthele, ).…”

Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Factors Affecting Intelligibility Across Closely Related Varieties in Pentecost Island, Vanuatu.

“…Therefore we developed two oral word intelligibility tests: a translation task and a picture pointing task. The results of the two tests correlated highly (r =.99, p <.01; see Gooskens & Schneider 2016), which shows that the picture task and the translation task both test intelligibility in the same manner. We also have evidence that the two word intelligibility tests are well able to capture real-life intelligibility.…”

“…We only provide the information for the analysis presented in this paper. For detailed information about the method and results of our study in its entirety we refer the reader to Gooskens & Schneider (2016).…”

“…In Gooskens & Schneider (2016) we presented results of intelligibility measurements between the Raga and Apma varieties. In the present paper we will have a closer look at the intelligibility results.…”

A Follow-up Analysis of Listener (Mis)comprehension across Language Varieties in Pentecost, Vanuatu

“…Aside from intelligibility surveys in Efate (Stahl 1994) and north-central Santo (Stahl n.d.), we are aware of no other research in Vanuatu. In 2015, we took initial steps to fill this knowledge gap by devising an intelligibility test that can be done relatively quickly and easily in a largely undeveloped, oral, rural society like Vanuatu (Gooskens and Schneider 2016). In this paper, we examine the data to gain a better understanding of anomalous results: which linguistic factors influenced comprehension, and the relative intelligibility of varieties.…”