1

2 languages(a and b) are related yet the speaker of a can understand better what the other says(b), but when the b speaker hears A - he gets less information?

Does it mean language A is more ancient than the other? I think there is a proper name for this linguistic effect(observation)

Sir Cornflakes
  • 30,154
  • 3
  • 65
  • 128
ERJAN
  • 139
  • 4

1 Answers1

1

how do you call the linguistic effect of 1 speaker understanding another related language but not vice versa?

Maybe lopsided asymmetric (as opposed to mutual) intelligibility?

Does it mean language A is more ancient than the other?

No, it doesn't. "More ancient" is not a meaningful way to describe languages. All living languages experience drift (random change; possibly at different rates in different historical periods and places), so they diverge. Sometimes, due to geography, politics, wars, etc, the speakers of a given language can end up in multiple isolated groups, and then the way they speak will start to diverge slowly, possibly even borrowing new vocabulary from different sources. It's not right to say one of the resulting languages is more ancient than the other. Rather: they have a common ancestor.

Unfortunately, writing appeared late in human history, and the ability to record sound even more recently, so our horizon (how far back in time we can "look" in order to reconstruct the languages spoken then) is limited. Through comparing multiple related modern languages, linguists can partially reconstruct (i.e. make an informed guess about) what their common ancestor might have sounded like, but beyond ≈6000 years this becomes mere speculation.

Statistically, the bias in intelligibility is more influenced by factors like social prestige, utility in trade, availability of media, literature, and cultural dominance, than by the amount of change accumulated since the two languages diverged.

And, since you said "1 speaker ... another speaker" - it's worth mentioning that the individual experience of those speakers could matter more than the statistical bias.

ngn
  • 505
  • 3
  • 10
  • 4
    the term is asymmetric intelligibility (not lopsided). Otherwise this is a very good answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_intelligibility#Asymmetric_intelligibility – Tristan May 05 '23 at 08:49
  • The social factors you mention certainly play a larger role within language variants that coexist within the same speech community – that’s called diglossia (e.g., Scottish people have zero troubles understanding Estuary English, but the reverse may not be true; virtually everyone in China understands Standard Mandarin just fine, but someone from Beijing will not understand most local languages). But when there is little overlap in the speech communities, the amount of phonetic change can absolutely be the primary factor; e.g., Danes tend to understand Swedes better than vice versa. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 05 '23 at 10:18
  • Those are quite equal in social prestige, utility in trade, availability of media, literature and cultural dominance (indeed, since varying parts of Sweden were under Danish rule at various times, cultural dominance has historically been in favour of Danish, which would entail Swedes understanding Danish better) – the only significant factor is the complex and rapid ways Danish phonology has radically changed, compared to the relatively simple changes in Swedish. Swedish consequently has a shallower orthography, which helps Danes. – Janus Bahs Jacquet May 05 '23 at 10:21
  • @Tristan Thanks, I edited that in. – ngn May 05 '23 at 16:36