Mutual Intelligibility. [was Re: Misrepresenting others' views]

[Mark Odegard <Odegard@means.net>]

On 13 Oct 99 at 10:47, ECOLING at aol.com wrote:

> Saying that many linguists commonly use a definition of
> distinct languages referring in some way to "mutual
> intelligibility" in no way implies that they are in any sense
> unaware of other factors which would enter into a refined
> definition.

I going to use this snippet to turn the subject onto the more general
question of 'mutual intelligibility' and the uselessness of the term.
Let's face it: Geordie (the dialect found in Newcastle on Tyne) is
unintelligible to most other native-speakers of English --
particularly if the particular Geordie being listened to is suffused
with ethnic pride and wants to exclude some flapping ears.
Nonetheless, if you taped a pub conversation, then had it
transcribed word-for-word, and accounting for Tyneside slang, it
comes out as informal low-register Standard English. Beyond 'slang'
and the peculiariaties of the 'accent', it's my understanding
there are no grammatical or lexical differences that make it in any
way extraordinary, when compared to other English 'dialects'.

The issue is rather modern. In times past, in times when the mass
of humanity was illiterate, if one group shifted its 'accent' too
far away from the 'standard', it was de facto a separate language.
But if you, the modern linguist, did a word-for-word
phonemo-grammatico-lexical analysis, you'd see it was the *same*
language.

One wonders if the ancient reporters were hearing an extravagantly
sound-shifted 'dialect' of Greek when they mention the Pelasgian
language. The question becomes pointed when you also ask if the
language of the Makedones was really 'Greek'. Was Philip of
Macedon's mother tongue an Illyrian 'dialect'? I vaguely remember
reading once that Alexander had to learn proper Greek at Aristotles' knee.

I've posited a grammatico-lexical definition of 'language', but this
has its problems too. What happens when there are major grammatical
innovations, but of a such transparent nature that the next-door
cognate has no problems understanding it (e.g., collapsing locative
ablative and instrumental into dative+preposition)? My answer is they
are separate languages, inasmuch as both speakers will regard the
other's speech as 'ungrammatical'.

The third possibility is complete lexical replacement, possibly with
some phonological changes, but nothing in terms of grammar. I don't think
such a thing is possible but would like to be proved wrong. English
comes closest to this, but no one is going to say English is anything
other than Germanic, notwithstanding all the French we've devoured.

My point is that 'mutual intelligibility' is not a proper test for
'separate-languageness' or of 'same-languageness'. Not for known
written languages where we can all consult the big OED-style
historical dictionaries.

Someone needs to come up with a few new words that everyone can agree
on. The word 'lect' is useful, but limited.
--
Mark Odegard   mailto:odegard at means.net