Cover not available
Article published In:
NOWELE
Vol. 73:2 (2020) ► pp.252–275

The Leipzig-Jakarta list as a means to test Old English / Old Norse mutual intelligibility

| University of Zurich
The use of basic word lists has long been common in the fields of second language acquisition and language typology. The application to the study of mutual intelligibility between closely related languages on the other hand has never gained much traction. This article will analyse the degree of mutual intelligibility between the vocabularies of Old English (Anglian) and Old Norse (Old Icelandic) with the use of the Leipzig-Jakarta List which ranks vocabulary by their resistance to borrowing. The entries were transliterated to the International Phonetic Alphabet and truncated so that only the word-roots remained. The entries were then compared using a rule-set based on phonetic deviations, the so-called Levenshtein Distance and a method derived from it called ALINE. The study finds a relatively low phonetic distance between the lists and concludes that they are overall close enough to be mutually intelligible.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Anglo-Scandinavian Contact in England
  • 3.Old English / Old Norse semi-communication in previous research
  • 4.Defining closeness
  • 5.Basic vocabularies
    • 5.1Earliest basic vocabularies
    • 5.2Vocabularies based on frequency
    • 5.3The Leipzig-Jakarta List
      • 5.3.1Old English / Old Norse Leipzig-Jakarta Lists
  • 6.Method
  • 7.Analysis
    • 7.1Modified Levenshtein-Distance
    • 7.2Aline
  • 8.Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00042.kel
References (71)
References
Barnes, M. 1992. Norse in the British Isles. In A. Faulkes & R. Perkins (eds.), Viking revaluations. Viking Society centenary symposium 14–15 May 1992, 65–84. London: Viking Society for Northern Research.Google Scholar
Baetke, W. 2006. Wörterbuch zur altnordischen Prosaliteratur. Digital. Edited by H. Fix et al. Greifswald: Universität Greifswald. Available at: [URL]Google Scholar
Benediktsson, H. 1961. The earliest Germanic phonology. Lingua 101. 237–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, I. 2016. A note on the relationship between Scandinavian and Low German. Journal of Historial Sociolinguistics 2(2). 189–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosworth, J. & T. N. Toller. 1955. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary: Based on the manuscript collections of Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, K. 2002. Semicommunication and accommodation: Observations from the linguistic situation in Scandinavia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(1). 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Semi-communication and beyond. Some results of the Hamburg Hanseatic Project (1990–1995). In L. Elemevik & E. H. Jahr (eds.), Contact between Low German and Scandiavian in the Late Middle Ages. 25 years of research, 75–94. Stockholm: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för Svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. & L. K. Arnovick. 2017. The English language: A linguistic history, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunner, K. 1965. Altenglische Grammatik: Nach der angelsächsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers, 3rd edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Coates, R. 2006. Behind the dictionary-forms of Scandinavian elements in England. Journal of the English Place-Name Society 381. 43–61.Google Scholar
Cole, M. 2018. A native origin for Present-Day English they, their, them . Diachronica 35(2). 165–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Czaykowksa-Higgins, E. & M. D. Kinkade. 1998. Salish languages and linguistics. In E. Czaykowksa-Higgins & M. D. Kinkade (eds.), Salish languages and linguistics. Theoretical and descriptive perspectives, 1–68. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. 2006. Comparative syntax of Old English and Old Icelandic. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Delsing, L.-O. & K. L. Åkeson. 2005. Håller språket ihop Norden? En forskningsrapport om ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska. Copenhagen: Nordiska Ministerrådet. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DOE = Cameron, A., A. Crandell Amos, A. diPaolo Healey et al. 2018. Dictionary of Old English: A to I online. Retrieved from [URL]
Downey, S., G. Sun & G. Kondrak. 2017. Alignment of Phonetic Sequences Using the ‘ALINE’ Algorithm (AlineR). R.Google Scholar
Downey, S., G. Sun & P. Norquest. 2017. AlineR: An R package for optimizing feature-weighted alignments and linguistic distances. The R Journal 9(1). 138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durkin, P. 2014. Borrowed words: A history of loanwords in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fjalldal, M. 1993. How valid is the Anglo-Scandinavian language passage in Gunnlaug’s Saga as historical evidence? Neophilologus 771. 601–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleming, R. 2010. Britain after Rome. The fall and rise, 400–1070. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Foote, P. G. 1974. Gunnlaugssaga ormstungu. London: Viking Society for Northern Research.Google Scholar
Forte, A., R. D. Oram & F. Pedersen. 2005. Viking empires. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gooskens, C. & W. Heeringa. 2004. The position of Frisian in the Germanic language area. In D. Gilbers, M. Schreuder & N. Knevel (eds.), On the boundaries of phonology and phonetics, 61–87. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Gooskens, C. 2006. Linguistic and extra-Linguistic Predictors of inter-Scandinavian intelligibility. Linguistics in the Netherlands 231. 101–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28(6). 445–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haas, W. 2014. Sprache in Variation – und warum sich die Deutschschweizer trotzdem verstehen. In E. Glaser, A. Kolmer, M. Meyer & E. Stark (eds.), Sprache(n) verstehen, 127–150. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.Google Scholar
Hadley, D. 2002. Viking and native: Re-thinking identity in the Danelaw. Early Medieval Europe 11(1). 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagland, J. R. 2000. “Alls vér erum einnar tungu” – igjen: Språkhistorisk realitet eller litterært topos? Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 221. 107–112.Google Scholar
Harðarson, G. 1999. “Alls vér erum einnar tungu”. Um skyldleika ensku og íslensku í Fyrstu málfræðiritgerðinni. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 211. 11–30.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. & U. Tadmor. 2009. The Loanword Typology Project and the World Loanword Database. In M. Haspalmath & U. Tadmor (eds.). Loanwords in the world’s languages. A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. 1966. Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry 36(2). 280–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heeringa, W. 2004. Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levensthein Distance. PhD Thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Heusler, A. 1932. Altisländisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
van Heuven, V. J. 2008. Making sense of strange sounds: (Mutual) intelligibility of related language varieties. A review. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2(1–2). 39–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higham, N. J. & M. J. Ryan. 2013. The Anglo-Saxon world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hines, J. 1990. Philology, archaeology and the adventus Saxonum vel Anglorum. In A. Bammesberger & A. Wollmann (eds.), Britain 400–600: Language and history, 17–36. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hogg, R. M. 1992. A grammar of Old English. Volume 1: Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
International Phonetic Association. 2013. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the international phonetic alphabet, 14th print edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. B. 1989. On the Mutual Intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese. Hispania 72(4). 848–852. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirchmeier, S. & E. S. Jansen. 2016. Nordisk sprogforståelse og kommunikationsstrategier. Sprog i Norden 2016, 61–78.Google Scholar
Kondrak, G. 2000. A new algorithm for the alignment of phonetic sequences. Proceedings of the first meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Conference, 288–295. N.p.: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
2002. Algorithms for language reconstruction. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Kondrak, G. & T. Sherif. 2006. Evaluation of several phonetic similarity algorithms on the task of cognate identification. In J. Nerbonne & E. Hinrichs (eds.), Proceedings of the COLING-ACL Workshop on Linguistic Distances, 43–50. Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. 1983. An overview of sequence comparison: Time warps, string edits, and Macromolecules. SIAM Review 25(2). 201–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. 1994. Old English. A historical linguistic companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavelle, R. 2010. Alfred’s wars. Sources and interpretations of Anglo-Saxon warfare in the Viking Age. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Levenshtein, V. I. 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8). 707–710.Google Scholar
Mattingly, D. 2006. An imperial possession. Britain in the Roman Empire. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 1999. What constitutes a basic vocabulary for spoken communication? Studies in English Language and Literature 11. 233–249.Google Scholar
Moulton, W. G. 1988. Mutual intelligibility among speakers of early Germanic dialects. In D. G. Calder & T. C. Christy (eds.), Germania. Comparative studies in the Old Germanic languages and literatures, 9–28. Wolfeboro, NH: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Nedoma, R. 2006. Kleine Grammatik des Altisländischen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Nesse, A. 2002. Språkkontakt mellon norsk og tysk i hansatidens Bergen. Oslo: Novus forlag.Google Scholar
2012. Norwegian and German in Bergen. In L. Elemevik & E. H. Jahr (eds.), Contact between Low German and Scandiavian in the Late Middle Ages. 25 Years of Research, 95–112. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. F. 2015. The vowel systems of Old English, Old Norse and Old High German compared. In J. O. Aksedal & H. F. Nielsen (eds.), Early Germanic languages in contact, 261–276. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noreen, A. 1970. Altnordische Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ogden, C. K. 1932. Basic English. A general introduction with rules and grammar, 2nd edn. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Pagel, M., Q. D. Atkinson & A. Meade. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 449(11). 717–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. D. 2000. Viking Age England. Stroud: Tempus.Google Scholar
Robinson, O. W. 1992. Old English and its closest relatives. A Survey of the earliest Germanic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sağın-Şimşek, Ç. & W. König. 2011. Receptive multilingualism and language understanding: Intelligibility of Azerbaijani to Turkish speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(3). 315–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salway, P. 1981. Roman Britain. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Sawyer, B. & P. Sawyer. 1993. Medieval Scandinavia: From conversion to reformation, circa 800–1500. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Schrijver, P. 2014. Language contact and the origin of Germanic languages. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swadesh, M. 1950. Salish internal relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 16(4). 157–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swan, M. 2001. Authorship and anonymity. In P. Pulsiano & E. Treharne (eds.), A companion to Anglo-Saxon literature, 71–83. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tadmor, U., M. Haspelmath & B. Taylor. 2010. Borrowability and the notion of basic vocabulary. Diachronica 21(2). 226–246.Google Scholar
Toon, T. E. 1992. Old English dialects. In R. M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, 421–426. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Townend, M. 2002. Language and history in Viking Age England. Linguistic relations between speakers of Old Norse and Old English. Turnhout: Brepols. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. & E. M. Wright. 1982. Old English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fox, Susan, Anthony Grant & Laura Wright
2023. Contact Theory and the History of English. In Medieval English in a Multilingual Context [New Approaches to English Historical Linguistics, ], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Walkden, George, Juhani Klemola & Thomas Rainsford
2023. An Overview of Contact-Induced Morphosyntactic Changes in Early English. In Medieval English in a Multilingual Context [New Approaches to English Historical Linguistics, ], ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.