Elsevier

Lingua

Volume 119, Issue 5, May 2009, Pages 709-732
Lingua

Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects experimentally tested

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.001Get rights and content

Abstract

We argue that mutual intelligibility testing is an adequate way to determine how different two languages or language varieties are. We tested the mutual intelligibility of 15 Chinese dialects functionally at the level of isolated words (word-intelligibility) and the level of sentences (sentence intelligibility). We collected data for each dialect by playing isolated words and sentences spoken in 15 Chinese dialects to 15 listeners. Word-intelligibility was determined by having listeners perform a semantic categorization task whereby words had to be classified as one of ten different categories such as body part, plant, animal, etc. Sentence intelligibility was estimated by having the listeners translate a target word in each sentence into their own dialect. We obtained 47,250 data (15 × 150 × 15 for the word part and 15 × 60 × 15 for the sentence part). We also had at our disposal structural similarity measures (lexical similarity, phonological correspondence) for each pair of the 15 Chinese dialects published by Cheng (Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing 1997, 2.1, pp. 41–72). Our general conclusion is that the degree of mutual intelligibility can be determined by both opinion and functional tests. These two subjective measures are significantly correlated with one another and can be predicted from objective measures (lexical similarity and phonological correspondence) equally well. However, functional intelligibility measures, especially at the sentence level, better reflect Chinese dialect classifications than opinion scores.

References (33)

  • S. Nooteboom

    Lexical retrieval from fragments of spoken words: Beginnings vs endings

    Journal of Phonetics

    (1981)
  • Anderson, H., 2005. Intelligibility testing (RTT) between Mendankwe and Nkwen. SIL Electronic Survey Reports 2005-002....
  • R. Bezooijen et al.

    Word intelligibility of language varieties in the Netherlands and Flanders under minimal conditions

  • R. Bezooijen et al.

    Assessment of speech synthesis

  • G.E.P. Box et al.

    Statistics for Experimenters

    (1978)
  • Brye, E., Brye, E., 2000. Rapid Appraisal and Intelligibility Testing Surveys of the Eastern Beboid Group of Languages....
  • Campbell, J., 2004. Chinese language FAQ. Glossika Language Web. http://www.glossika.com/en/dict/faq.php#1. (Updated...
  • Casad, E.H., 1974. Dialect Intelligibility Testing. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and...
  • J.K. Chambers et al.

    Dialectology

    (1980)
  • C.-C. Cheng

    Measuring relationship among dialects: DOC and related resources

    Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing

    (1997)
  • A. Cutler et al.

    Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch

    Language and Speech

    (2001)
  • Delsing, L.-O., Lundin-Åkesson, K., 2005. Håller språket ihop Norden? En forskningsrapport om ungdomars förståelse av...
  • C. Gooskens

    The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages

    Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

    (2007)
  • Gooskens, C., submitted. Non-linguists’ judgments of linguistic distances between dialects. Nordic Journal of...
  • C. Gooskens et al.

    Perceptive evaluation of Levenshtein dialect distance measurements using Norwegian dialect data

    Language Variation and Change

    (2004)
  • H. Hickerson et al.

    Testing procedures for estimating transfer of information amongst Iroquios languages and dialects

    International Journal of American Linguistics

    (1952)
  • Cited by (95)

    • Language barriers, corporate site visit, and analyst forecast accuracy

      2023, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text