Abstract

This paper includes a detailed discussion on the intelligibility of the speakers of four regional dialects of the Indo-Aryan language of Assamese. Prior research on Assamese dialects mostly being confined to examining structural variation lends this study relevance and urgency. The dialects of Standard Assamese, Central Assamese, Kamrupi, and Goalparia, covering three varieties each, were considered for the study. Using a functional intelligibility testing approach, the rate of overall intelligibility as well as of inter- and intra-dialectal mutual intelligibility of the dialects were determined. 24 speakers (1 male and 1 female from each variety) were asked to record ‘texts’— words, sentences, and connected speech in their native varieties of Assamese. 11 listeners from each variety (132 in total) were then tested on their comprehension of texts from non-native varieties. Thereafter, their rates of comprehension were used to determine the rates of mutual intelligibility between speakers of the different dialects and varieties of Assamese. This paper establishes that the rates of mutual intelligibility are unequal and asymmetric among the dialects— the native speakers of the Standard and Central Assamese dialects were more intelligible to the speakers of Kamrupi and Goalparia than vice-versa. Finally, the paper finds that the rate of intelligibility is the lowest for words in isolation and reinforces the important role of context in intelligibility.

Keywords

Assamese Asymmetric intelligibility Dialect Functional intelligibility testing Mutual intelligibility

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Bansal, R. K. (1969). The Intelligibility of Indian English, (Monograph 4), Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad.
  2. Casad, E. H. (1974). Dialect intelligibility testing, Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma, Norman.
  3. Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York.
  4. Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th Edition, Blackwell, Malden.
  5. Das, B. (2005). Socio-Linguistic Study of the Assamese Speech Community in Guwahati (Doctoral Thesis), Gauhati University, Guwahati.
  6. Das, D.N. (1990). The dialects of Goalpara and Kamrup: A Comparative Analysis (Doctoral Thesis). Gauhati University, Guwahati.
  7. Das, H. (2012). A Regional Dialect of Assamese Language, International journal of computer applications in engineering sciences, (2) 159-160.
  8. Datta, B. (2003). Non-Standard Forms of Assamese: Their Socio-cultural Role. Linguistic Situation in North-East India, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi.
  9. Denes, P.B., & Pinson, E.N. (1963). The Speech Chain, Bell Telephone Laboratories, US. Didla, S.G. (2007). Intelligibility of Asian English- a Phonetic Study (Doctoral Thesis), English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
  10. Durisala, N., Prakash, S.G.R., Nambi, A., & Batra, R. (2011). Intelligibility and Acoustic Characteristics of Clear and Conversational Speech in Telugu (A South Indian Dravidian Language). Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, 63(2):165-71. https://doi/10.1007/s12070-011-0241-7
  11. Ganta, K.B. (2012). Mutual Intelligibility of English Spoken among four Language families in India-A Phonetic Study (Doctoral Thesis), The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
  12. Gooskens, C. (2013). Experimental Methods for Measuring Intelligibility of Closely Related Language Varieties, Oxford University Press, New York, United States of America. https://doi/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.013.0010
  13. Gooskens, C. (2018). Dialect Intelligibility, The Handbook of Dialectology First Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 204-218
  14. Gooskens, C., & Heuven, V.J. van. (2017). Measuring cross-linguistic intelligibility in the Germanic, Romance and Slavic language groups. Speech Communication, 89, 25–36.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2017.02.008
  15. Gooskens, C., Heeringa, W., & Beijering, K. (2008). Phonetic and lexical predictors of intelligibility, International Journal of Humanities and Arts computing, 2(1–2), 63–81.
  16. Goswami, U.N. (1958). A Study on Kamrupi: a Dialect of Assamese (Doctoral Thesis). Gauhati University, Guwahati.
  17. Gyamerah, E. (2018). English Intelligibility Issues in Outsourcing of Marketing and Call Centers, Culminating Projects in English, 148. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/148
  18. Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, Language, Nation. American Anthropologist, 68(4), 922-935. http://www.jstor.org/stable/670407
  19. Heuven, V. J. van., & Vries, J. W. de. (1981). Begrijpelijkheid van buitenlanders: de rol van fonische versus niet-fonische faotoren, Forum der Letteren, 22, 309-320.
  20. Hickerson, H., Turner, G.D., & Hickerson, N.P. (1952). Testing procedures for estimating transfer of information among Iroquois dialects and languages, International Journal of American Linguistics, 18(1) 1-8.
  21. Impe, L. (2010). Mutual intelligibility of national and regional varieties of Dutch in the Low Countries (Ph.D. dissertation), Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
  22. James, C.J., Cheesman, M. F., Cornelisse, L., & Miller, L.T. (1994). Response times to sentence verification tasks (SVTS) as a measure of effort in speech perception, Fifth Australian International Conference on Speech Science & Technology, (2) 600–605.
  23. Jaya Raju, S. (2005). Mutual Intelligibility of English among Different Nationalities: A Phonetic Study. (An Unpublished PhD Thesis), CIEFL, Hyderabad.
  24. Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation, Longman, London.
  25. Kluge, A. (2007). RTT Retelling Method: An Alternative Approach to Intelligibility Testing, SIL Electronic Working Papers, 6, SIL International, Dallas.
  26. Kolusu, S.K. (2012). A Phonological Study on the Intelligibility of English at an International Call Center, (MPhil Thesis), The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
  27. Kumari, V.M. (2007). English Spoken by Engineering Students A Study in Intelligibility, (Doctoral Thesis), The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
  28. Kürschner, S., Gooskens, C., & Bezooijen, R. (2008). Linguistic Determinants of the Intelligibility of Swedish Words among Danes, International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2, 83-100.
  29. Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests: A teacher’s book, Longmans, Green and Company, Bristol, Inglaterra.
  30. Moral, D. (1992). Phonology of Asamiya Dialects: Contemporary Standard and Mayong. (Ph.D. dissertation), Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, Pune, Maharashtra.
  31. Nahhas, Ramzi. (2006). The Steps of Recorded Text Testing: A Practical Guide, Payap University, Chiang Mai.
  32. Nath, Amal. (2019). Ethnic Dialects of the Assamese Language, International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(12), 3081-3088.
  33. Ojah, D. (1995). A Critical Study of Barpeta Dialect. (Doctoral Thesis), Gauhati University, Guwahati.
  34. Phukan, P. (2020). Divisions of Assam. svg. Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository.
  35. Rabha, R.C. (1994). A Descriptive Analysis of the Dudhnoi Dialect of Assamese. (Doctoral Thesis), Gauhati University, Guwahati.
  36. Ralston, J.V., Pisoni, D.B., Lively, S.E., Greene, B.G., & Mullennix, J.W. (1991). Comprehension of synthetic speech produced by rule: Word monitoring and sentence-by-sentence listening times. Human Factors, 33 (4), 471–491. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F001872089103300408
  37. Rathod, S. (2011). Modern Englishes and Choices of Students: A Phonetic Study with reference to Intelligibility. (MPhil Thesis), The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
  38. Safotso, G.T., (2015). The Mutual Intelligibility of Cameroon English and Indian English Speakers, English Linguistics Research, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v4n3p83
  39. Sarma, M.K. (2009). Some Aspects of the Phonology of the Barpetia Dialect of Assamese, NEIL, 2.
  40. Sheikh, M.A.M. (2016). Bhatia aru Goalpariya upobhaxar Dhonitottwo, Satsori, 11(12).
  41. Sukumar, C. (1998). Stress in English-Intelligibility in India (MPhil Thesis), The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
  42. Tang, C., & Heuven, V.J. van (2009). Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects experimentally tested. Lingua, 119(5), 709–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.001
  43. Tang, C., & Heuven, V.J. van. (2007). Mutual Intelligibility and Similarity of Chinese Dialects: Predicting Judgments from Objective Measures, Linguistics in the Netherlands, 24, 223 - 234. https://doi/10.1075/avt.24.21tan.
  44. Trudgill, P. (2003). A Glossary of Sociolinguistics, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
  45. Upendran, S. (1980). The Intelligibility of English Spoken by Tamilians. (MLitt Thesis), Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad.
  46. Valette, R.M. (1977). Modern Language Testing. Second Edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc, New York.
  47. Voegelin, C.F., & Zellig, S. H. (1951) Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural languages, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 95(3)322-329.