Mutual intelligibility among Turkic languages
PrintMutual intelligibility among Turkic languages
- https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110220261.159/html "Mutual intelligibility is high between Turkish and Gagauz and also among the Kipchak languages." [tur]<>[gag] and [tur]<>[uzn]
- https://plc.sas.upenn.edu/turkish "Turkish is mutually intelligible, barring these vocabulary differences, with the Turkic languages spoken in adjacent areas, such as Azerbaijani, Uzbek, and Turkmen. A speaker of Turkish can be understood as far east as Kyrgyzstan."
- https://tehlikedekidiller.com/wp-content/uploads/MA_Robert_Lindsay_Mutua... "Turkish has about 65-90% intelligibility with Azeri. After a few weeks of close contact, they can often communicate pretty well." "Kazakh and Kirghiz are also close, with probably 75-80% intelligibility between them." "Tatar and Bashkir are probably even closer to that, with intelligibility on the order of 85%." "Uzbek and Uyghur are fairly close, but they are still probably only 65-70% intelligible." "Personally, I think the intelligibility of Turkmen and Turkish is probably around 40%. Turkish has low intelligibility between Crimean Tatar and Karaim. Crimean Tatar speakers say that Turks cannot understand their language." "The intelligibility of Turkish and South Azeri may be quite high, on the order of 85% or so, higher than between Turkish and North Azeri." "I would estimate that Turkish-Kazakh intelligibility is less than 40%." "Gagauz has very high intelligibility with Turkish, so high that it may be a dialect of Turkish."
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321875105_The_Effect_of_Typolog... A table with various figures
- https://www.academia.edu/4068771/Mutual_Intelligibility_Among_the_Turkic... page 9 there are various figures, for instance 67% between Turkish and Turkmen (based on a Swadesh-215 list with borrowings)
- https://www.turkceogretimi.com/dil-uezerine/the-internal-classification-... Another good source (without borrowings, Turkish and Turkmen at 73.6% for instance)
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341445391_A_Comparison_of_Moder... Another dataset
So there are various, and sometimes contradicting, claims. A big issue is the asymmetric intelligibility: Turkey is now the second biggest TV exporter in the world ( https://haymillian.com/turkish-delight-how-turkey-has-become-the-second-... ) so Turkic speakers from all around the world watch Turkish series and this has made the Istanbul accent more understandable. At the same time, Turkish power is growing and more and more Turkic speakers do business with Turkey, visit Turkey for tourism, go there to study or work, etc. So a young educated Azeri, Iraqi Turkmen, or Uzbek most likely understand Istanbul Turkish. The opposite may not be true.
We will add lexical similarity percentage information for many Turkic languages, for inclusion in the next edition of the Ethnologue.


Comments
Dear Antoine,
There is a lot of good information here on mutual intelligibility among Turkic languages. Also, the paper by Robert Lindsay has a LOT of good information about Turkic languages in general.
Do you know if Lindsay's paper is published? I don't see a date or a publisher (or a university if it was a thesis). Also, I am not sure how to represent the "turkceogretimi.com" site. I would like to use the data from the lexicostatistical table of IM percentages between the different languages.
Thanks for your help.
Chuck Fennig
Managing Editor, Ethnologue
Hi Chuck,
I double-checked and I think Robert Lindsay is not a reliable source per se (no scholarly publications from him? no affiliation with a research institution?). His paper may be good but we should only consider the sources he cites and check their reliability.
Regarding turkceogretimi.com:
They copied content originally published on https://scienceontheweb.net/
Here's the original webpage from scienceontheweb.net retrieved thanks to the Internet WayBack Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20131224215807/http://turkic-languages.scien...
I don't understand who was the author of this content but their methodology seems serious so I tend to believe this source. Also, their lexicostatistical matrix is partly cited in this book p. 113: Services Computing for Language Resources, Springer, https://books.google.fr/books?id=vsJNDwAAQBAJ
The chapter is "A Constraint Approach to Lexicon Induction for Low-Resource Languages": https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-7793-7_7
It was published by this professor: http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~yohei/
So I guess, if you want to be on the safe side then you can consider only the data used in the above book, citing them as the source. Or trust the overall methodology and use the whole table, citing scienceontheweb.net as the source.
Best,
Antoine
Antoine,
Thank you for this information.
I will basically just take the information from the Wayback Machine scienceontheweb site.
Best wishes,
Chuck Fennig
Managing Editor, Ethnologue
Add new comment