• No results found

Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects : an experimental approach Tang, C.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects : an experimental approach Tang, C."

Copied!
2
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects : an experimental approach

Tang, C.

Citation

Tang, C. (2009, September 8). Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects : an experimental approach. LOT dissertation series.

Utrecht. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13963

Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown)

License: Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden

Downloaded

from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13963

Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable).

(2)

Chaoju Tang

Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects:

An experimental approach

This study examines the mutual intelligibility between all 225 pairs of 15 Chinese dialects, in two main branches, i.e., six Mandarin dialects and nine non-Mandarin (Southern) dialects. The dialects (often distinct languages by western standards) differ in the richness of their lexical tone inventories, ranging between four (in most Mandarin dialects) to as many as nine (in Guangzhou/Cantonese). Judgment (how well do listeners think they under- stand the speaker?) and functional (how well do speakers actually understand the speaker?) intelligibility tests were used. A methodological question was whether (fast and efficient) judgment testing may serve as a viable substitute for (laborious) functional intelligibility testing. Dialect fragments were also monotonized in order to estimate the importance of pitch variation for intelli- gibility in tone languages. Also, a large number of objective linguistic distance measures were collected, either copied from the literature or computed by the author on existing language resources. A systematic attempt is made to determine how well the judgment and functional intelligibility scores can be predicted from each other and from (combinations of) objective linguistics distance measures.

Mutual intelligibility testing affords a single dimension along which the degree of difference between language varieties can be expressed. The hypothesis is tested that the agglomeration trees generated from mutual intelligibility scores correlate strongly with linguistic taxonomies expressing family relationships among languages and dialects.

This study should be of interest to linguists, more specifically dialectologists, dialectometrists and phoneticians.

Chaoju Tang

Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects:

An experimental approach 228

Chaoju T ang Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects

ISBN 978-94-6093-001-0

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Observing the tree structures generated from the mean scores obtained from the judgment (opinion) and functional tests of mutual intelligibility, we found no perfect reflection

Last but not least, I would like to thank the China Scholarship Council, the Leiden University Fund for its Delta scholarship and LUCL for your financial

Not only did their results bear out that intelligibility was best between American speakers and listeners, but they also showed the existence of what they called an

In the preceding subsection we introduced the difference between onset and coda. It happens very often that a language uses clearly distinct allophones for the same

Given the absence of obstruents in Mandarin codas and the absence of coda clusters, it is an open question how Chinese learners of English will deal with the fortis

Pearson correlation coefficients for vowel and consonant identification for Chinese, Dutch and American speakers of English (language background of speaker and listeners

(1975) Maturational constraints in the acquisition of second languages. Voiced-voiceless distinction in Dutch fricatives. Effecten van buitenlands accent op de herkenning

Mean percent correctly translated target words is based on 60 responses in sen- tences broken down by 15 speaker dialects and 15 listener dialects (each of 60 sentence- final words