Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe

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

Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe

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

Making English a New Latin

The paper looks at various aspects of the so-called Latin-English analogy and particularly at the ways in which English may share the fate of Latin in ultimately becoming a victim of its own success. A critical factor in the history of Latin was a conceptual split between its native and non-native varieties, which eventually proved instrumental in establishing its reputation as a dead language. The author wishes to argue that current proposals for a codification of English as a Lingua Franca, aimed at providing vast numbers of L2 learners with a pedagogical alternative that does not emulate L1 standards, may be regarded as major steps towards making English a new Latin: creating a similar split between native versus foreigners' English

UNDERSTANDING NEW LANGUAGE: MUTUAL INTELLIGIBILITY IN ROMANCE LANGUAGE PAIR

This paper concerns to the strategy applied by speakers of  mutual intelligibilitity languages pairs in Europe, especially in Romance language pair, Portuegese and Spanish. Initial studies found a receptive multilingulism as a great strategy to break the gap of communication within these two languages.  It is found that the speakers of both Portuegese and Spanish are able to communicate and understand each other even though they do not speak each other language.  It happens because those two languages resemble each other and they have a large number of cognate words which makes them recognizable. However, it is also found that Portuegese speakers can understand Spanish easier than Spaniards understand Portuegese, because Portuegese is more complicated than spanish

How well can intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe be predicted by linguistic and non-linguistic variables?

We measured mutual intelligibility of 16 closely related spoken languages in Europe. Intelligibility was determined for all 70 language combinations using the same uniform methodology (a cloze test). We analysed the results of 1833 listeners representing the mutual intelligibility between young, educated Europeans from the same 16 countries. Lexical, phonological, orthographic, morphological and syntactic distances were computed as linguistic variables. We also quantified non-linguistic variables (e.g. exposure, attitudes towards the test languages). Using stepwise regression analysis the importance of linguistic and non-linguistic predictors for the mutual intelligibility in the 70 language pairs was assessed. Exposure to the test language was the most important variable, overriding all other variables. Then, limiting the analysis to the prediction of inherent intelligibility, we analysed the results for a subset of listeners with no or little previous exposure to the test language. Linguistic distances, especially lexical distance, now explain a substantial part of the variance

Opinions about Perceived Linguistic Intelligibility in Late-Medieval Italy

This article contributes to the historical study of intercomprehension between speakers of closely related languages by focusing on Italy in the period up to the mid-fifteenth century. After an introduction to the topic, the second section will be devoted to methodological questions, including certain differences between research based on experimental testing and research based on historical evidence. The third section of the article reports opinions by medieval speakers about the intelligibility of different Italo-Romance varieties, and then compares them to opinions about genealogically and/or geographically more distant languages. While the dominant view among experts on Italy’s linguistic history is that speakers were trapped within mutually unintelligible vernaculars, this review of the extant evidence suggests a greater degree of intercomprehension than is usually supposed.acceptedVersio

The Romance Advantage — The Significance of the Romance Languages as a Pathway to Multilingualism

As 41M in the US speak a Romance language in the home, it is necessary to personally and professionally empower L1 speakers of a Romance language through acquisition of one or more additional Romance languages. The challenge is that Romance language speakers, parents, and communities may be unaware of both the advantages of bilingual and multilingual skills and also of the relative ease in developing proficiency, and even fluency, in a second or third closely related language. In order for students to maximize their Romance language skills, it is essential for parents, educators, and other language stakeholders to work together to increase awareness, to develop curriculum, and to provide teacher training -- especially for Spanish-speakers, who form the vast majority of L1 Romance language speakers in the US, to learn additional Romance languages