Mutual intelligibility within Sidamo

Bender, M. Lionel; Cooper, Robert L.

doi:10.1016/0024-3841(71)90074-x

Cited by 28 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lexical distance measurements are generally good predictors of experimental measurements of intelligibility, as was shown in early publications by, for example, Bender and Cooper (1971), who found an r of .67 between morpheme cognateship (established on a variant of the Swadesh-100 word list) and interlingual intelligibility for all twenty-five combinations of five Cushitic languages. 11 Results of more recent investigations showing the relationship between lexical distances and intelligibility measures are summarized in Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.5.…”

Section: Lexicalmentioning

confidence: 69%

Mutual Intelligibility

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lexicalmentioning

confidence: 69%

Mutual Intelligibility

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The ideal solution would be to test the respondents on their actual knowledge of the languages they claim to be able to use. Applying the technique developed by Ladefoged et al (1972: 65-68), and Bender and Cooper (1971), Mubanga E. Kashoki (Ohannessian & Kashoki 1978: 123-43) focuses on between-languages communication in Zambia, since the assumption that the seven Zambian Bantu languages officially recognized as media of communication and of instruction -Bemba, Kaonde, Lunda, Luvale, Lozi, Nyanja, Tonga -are mutually unintelligible, is essential to the assessment of multilingualism in Zambia. Though the tests were not conducted in optimal conditions (Kashoki 1978: 140-41), the correspondences between Bemba, Nyanja, and Tonga in basic vocabulary and morphemic structure correlate most interestingly with the comprehension scores of the respondents.…”

Section: Language Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Sociolinguistically oriented language surveys: Reflections on the survey of language use and language teaching in Eastern Africa (Review Article)

Polomé

1982

Lang. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though a number of sociolinguistically oriented language surveys have been conducted elsewhere in the world-from the Philippines to Belize-none is comparable in size, scope, impact, financial support, and manpower input to the Survey of Language Use and Language Teaching in Eastern Africa conducted in 1968-1971 with a generous grant from the Ford Foundation under the sponsorship of the African institutions of higher learning in the countries surveyed: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. The complex administrative procedures, which included preliminary meetings of an Advisory Committee, the establishment of a central office in Nairobi with a Field Director and staff, regular meetings of a Survey Council with representatives of the various countries involved, backstopping operations by the University of California at Los Angeles and the Center for Applied Linguistics, need not be discussed here. • More important are the aims assigned to the Survey and the methods used to attain them, because they throw a particular light on the theoretical background of the techniques of sociolinguistic surveys and may allow certain interesting generalizations. Actually, the aims of the Survey of Language Use and Language Teaching in Eastern Africa, as agreed upon by representatives of the

show abstract

“…Hence, there are cases where varieties of the same languages are considered as different languages (Hetzron, 1972;Hetzron, 1977;Hudson, 2013;Smith, 2008). Therefore, due to politics, sensitivity to ethnicity and the lack of commitment from the scholars, the exact number of languages in Ethiopia is not known (Bender and Cooper, 1976;Demeke, 2001;Leslau, 1969).Furthermore, except some studies for example, Gutt (1980) and Ahland (2003) cited in Hudson (2013) on the Gurage varieties, and Bender and Cooper (1971) on mutual intelligibility of Sidamo dialects, the degree of mutual intelligibility among various varieties and the attitude of the speakers towards each others' varieties has not been thoroughly investigated. Hence, the present study examined the distance and the mutual intelligibility between Amharic and two Tigrigna varieties together with the effect of the attitude on the mutual intelligibility.…”

Section: Introduction 1language In Ethiopiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Amharic and Tigrigna are members of the Ethiosemitic language family, a branch of proto-Semitic family (Bender and Cooper, 1976;Demeke, 2001;Hetzron, 1972;Hetzron, 1977). According to Demeke (2001), Hetzron (1972), Hetzron (1977) and Bender and Cooper (1971), Ethiosemitic languages are divided into North and South Ethiosemitc. While the Tigrigna varieties are North Ethiosemitic languages, Amharic is one of the South Ethiosemitic languages.…”

Section: Introduction 1language In Ethiopiamentioning

confidence: 99%

The similarity and Mutual Intelligibility between Amharic and Tigrigna Varieties

Feleke¹

2017

Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects (VarDial)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study has examined the similarity and the mutual intelligibility between Amharic and two Tigrigna varities using three tools; namely Levenshtein distance, intelligibility test and questionnaires. The study has shown that both Tigrigna varieties have almost equal phonetic and lexical distances from Amharic. The study also indicated that Amharic speakers understand less than 50% of the two varieties. Furthermore, the study showed that Amharic speakers are more positive about the Ethiopian Tigrigna variety than the Eritrean variety. However, their attitude towards the two varieties does not have an impact on their intelligibility. The Amharic speakers' familiarity to the Tigrigna varieties seems largely dependent on the genealogical relation between Amharic and the two Tigrigna varieties.

show abstract

Mutual intelligibility within Sidamo

Cited by 28 publications

References 9 publications

Mutual Intelligibility

Mutual Intelligibility

Sociolinguistically oriented language surveys: Reflections on the survey of language use and language teaching in Eastern Africa (Review Article)

The similarity and Mutual Intelligibility between Amharic and Tigrigna Varieties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About