\

.John B. Jensen, Florida International University

Onthe Mutual Intelligibilityof Spanish and Portuguese

A. SpanishandPortuguesenmtua1lyintelligible?1 Although they have a millenniumor so of their own literary, lexical, grannnati-cal, phonological and orthographic traditionsbehind them, the two languages are often heldto be understandable to speakers of the otherone.

People who make decisions about publiclanguage use seem not to be in agreement.During the World Cup Soccer Champion-ships held in Mexico in 1986, with Spanishlanguage interviews on most televisionnewscasts, TV Globo in Brazil translated allSpanish interviews with subtitles, voice-overs, or consecutive interpretation by thereporter. Another Brazilian network, Man-chete, did not translate at all. Televisionproduction companies in Colombia custom-arily broadcast interviews of visiting Brazil-ians, frequently soccer players, in Por-tuguese with no translation. The Sao PauloInternational Airport makes virtually all an-nouncements in Spanish, as wen as in Por-tuguese, English, and French. The Rio deJaneiro International airport, on the otherhand, does not routinely make announce-ments in Spanish.

A variety of opinions have been expressedin writing, by both linguistsand non-linguists.

The British linguistWilliamEntwistle (1953[31]), in describing what makes two speechforms languages rather than dialects statedthat "mutual ease or difficultyof understand-ing is not the primary consideration. Norwe-gians and Swedes, Spaniards and Portuguese,can understand each other fairly well in theirdifferent languages:'

A popular tourist guidebook Qebsen andBiel, 1986 [329]) states the case for one-wayunderstanding:

-_.

Most Portuguese have a fairly good, natural comprehen-sion of spoken Spanish. But be forewarned that the re-verse is not the case. Knowing Spanish will put you intoa unique position for one-way communication-able toask directions or make reservations but unable to under-stand the response.

A similar statement appeared in a recentAssociated Press news article (Timberlake,1989 [2a]): "The languages [Spanish and Por-tuguese] are closely related but quite differentin pronunciation. The Portuguese can gener-ally understand spoken Spanish, but mostSpaniards can't understand Portuguese:'

The last two statements relate to Continen-tal Spanish and Continental Portuguese, andmight not be made the same way for AmericanSpanish and Brazilian Portuguese.

F"mally,two specialists in Portuguese, Elli-son and Andrews (1969 [259]), take a positionfor non-mutual-intelligibility:Who is not familiar with the notion-often an abusedone-that, for a person who knows Spanish well, oneweek's thumbing through a Portuguese grammar is usu-ally enough for a mastery of the written language? ...This is anything but the case, of course, where phonologyis concerned: here the two languages are not mutuallyintelligible; rather they are remarkably far apart.

Almost any informed native speaker ofeither language has an opinionon mutual intel-IigIDility,generally affirmative but with reser-vations. Jokes and stories are often told involv-ing misunderstandings in the use of Spanishand Portuguese by visitors from the "othercountry.''2

Aside from public language use, anecdotalexpressions of opinion and advice to tourists,the question of mutual comprehensibility hasa serious side for those involved in teachingPortuguese. One important issue involvesteaching technique, particularly Krashen'sconcept of "input hypothesis" as an element

849MUTUAL INTEWGIBILITY OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE

of the ''Natural Approach" (see Krashen andTerrell, 1983 [32-37]). If a begjnning Por-tuguese class consists of exclusively Spanishspeakers, the instructor can immerse the stu-dents in natural Portuguese at a fairly highlevel from the start, confident that not onlywillthey understand much of what is said, butthat that understanding will set in motion thenatural acquisitionprocess. If such is the case,a strong argument can be made for setting upspecial sections or a special intensive coursefor Spanish-speaking students to take full ad-vantage of the capability of the students.

Perhaps a more problematical question in-volves the proficiency testing of Spanish-speaking learners of Portuguese. If speakersof Spanish (whether natives or successful sec-ond-language learners) understand spokenPortuguese without training or experiencewith the language, established proficiencyguidelines become partially meaningless. Forexample, the 1987ACTFL Guidelines includethe followingdescription for the Intermediate-Low speaking level:

Able to handle successfully a limited number of interac-tive, task-oriented and social situations. Can ask andanswer questions, initiate and respond to simple state-ments, and maintain face-to-face conversation, althoughin a highly restricted manner and with much linguisticinaccuracy. Within these limitations, can perform suchtasks as introducing self, ordering a meal, asking direc-tions, and making purchases. Vocabu1aryis adequate toexpress onlythe most elementary needs. Strong interfer-ence from native language may ocCUJ:Misunderstandingsfrequently arise, but with repetition, the Intermediate-Low speaker can generally be understood by sympatheticinterlocutors (ACTFL, 1987 [16J).

If the student comes into a begjnning Por-tuguese class with a high degree of under-standing ability of the spoken language, thenthe tasks described above can very probablybe accomplished by a reasonably attentive stu-dent in a couple of weeks of class, long enoughto learn greetings, numbers and other expres-sions of "the most elementary needs:' Howthen do we measure actual proficiency ac-complishments? This is a matter for discus-sion elsewhere, Gensen, forthcoming) but itpoints up the critical nature of the questionof mutual comprehensibility.

Although we believe intuitively that thereis a lot of mutual intelligibility between thelanguages, and may often confirm the beliefthrough experience, I conducted a preliminaryresearch project to seek objective answers tothe followingquestions:

1. Are Spanish and Portuguese mutuallyintelligible?

2. If so, to what extent?3. Is comprehension more likely in one di-

rection than in the other?4. If so, which way and to what degree?5. What effect, if any, do other non-linguis-

tic factors (attitude, ag~ex, education andexperience with the other language) have oncross-language comprehension?

Project design

I prepared a pair of listening-comprehen-sion tests, one with recorded Spanish textand Portuguese questions and the other withPortuguese text and Spanish questions. Theaudio recordings included the followingitems,each about three minutes long:

1. A reading on Latin-Americanurban prob-lems, originally composed in Spanish from acollege Spanish textbook (!{norre, et aI., 1985[406-07]) and translated into Portuguese;read by male native speakers for each test

2. A reading on Christmas customs, origi-nally written in Portuguese from a collegePortuguese textbook (Ellison et aI., 1971[497-98]) and translated into Spanish; readby female speakers on each tape.

3. A reading on EcuadoI; originally inSpanish with Portuguese translation; read byfemale speakers.

4. A television news report consisting ofshort interviews of two people in each case.The Portuguese test was taken from a TVGlobo (Sao Paulo) report on a suburban tree"murderet:" The Spanish test was from a SINbroadcast on political turmoil in Bolivia. Be-cause these were actual air-checks it was de-cided not to try to reproduce the same textin the other language, but to use two differ-ent authentic texts of similar difficulty leveland style.

A written test was prepared consisting offive multiple-choice comprehension questionson each reading, given in the informants' na-tive language. the questions were designedto require genuine understanding and couldnot be answered byjust identifyingkey wordsin the text and matching them up with writtenanswers. Some questions required a certainamount of mental processing to answer cor-rectly, such as drawing conclusions from factspresented, easy tasks for native speakers,but demandinga highlevelofcomprehension.The written tests were identicalin the two

850 HISPANIA72 DECEMBER1989

languages, except for the questions dealingwith the TV newscasts.

The written test also included a short ques-tionnaire asking about age, sex, nationality,educational level, contact with the other lan-guage, and attitude toward the other lan-guage.

1 personally administered all tests usingthe same tape player in each session and withthe same oral presentation. The Spanish ver-sion was administered in Sao Pauloto studentsat the PUC and the USP. The Portuguesetest was given to students in the English Lan-guage Institute of Florida International Uni-versity, most new arrivals from Latin Ameri-ca.3Thirty-nine valid questionnaires were ob-tained from the Brazilian group and 32 fromthe Spanish group, with the elimination of re-sponses from informants who had extensiveexperience with the other language or whowere of foreign (e.g., European, Asian orNorth American) background.

Results

The overall results of the testing are shownin Figure 1, expressed as a simple percentageof correct responses, by group. The globalscores are close for the two groups: 58% forthe Brazilians and 50% for the Spanish group.Although apparently not large, the differencebetween the average scores of the two groupsis great enough to be statistically significant,at the <.05 leve~ on both the Pearson's cor-relation test and the two-tailed t-test formeans, meaning that the Brazilians' higherscores are probably not due to chance alone.(See the statistical results in Table 1.4

Table1: ListeningComprehensionCorrelationbetweenGROUPand SCORE

"Urbanization""Christmas""Ecuador""Newscast"

OverallK4 testsOverall (without

"Ecuador'')

Figure 2 shows individual scores for thefour texts. On the first two of the four read-ings, "Urbanization" and the "Christmas Let-ter," the Brazilianshave scores that are consid-erably higher than the Spanishgroup, with

correlation coefficients quite a bit greater thanthose reported for the overall score and at asignificance level of <.01.

On the fourth reading, the TV newscasts,correlation is still positive for the Brazilians,but to a lesser degree than on the first twoand at a <.05 significance leveL The differ-ence on this reading is.¥ery possibly due tothe non-identical nature of the texts in eachlanguage, so that the political commentarymay well have presented a slightly greaterlevel of inherent difficulty than the tree mur-derer report.

The results of test number 3, "Ecuador:'appear anomalous, with reverse correlation,giving higher scores for the Spanish groupthan for the Brazilians. The most likelyreasonfor the anomaly is fairly obvious: Spanish-speaking students, Latin Americans all, aremuch more likely to be familiarwith Ecuadorthan are Brazilians. One of the informants, infact, was an Ecuadorean, and his perfect "5"was disregarded. (His answers for other testswere included.)

On the supposition that the Ecuador read-ing produced an aberration in the results dueto its subject matter, the overall scores wererecalculated without the Ecuador results. Fig-ure 3 shows this recalculation of the overallscores (ct. Figure 1). Here with the com-pounding effect of three tests showing thesame direction of correlation, the Pearson's rcorrelation of .444 is rather high at a signifi-cance level of <.01.

The attitude question asked informants togive their opinionof the other language, usinga five-point scale from "I like it very much"( = 5) to "I can't stand to hear it" ( = 1). Brazil-ians showed a slightly more positive attitudetoward Spanish than did Spanish speakers to-ward Portuguese, with average scores of 3.13and 2.97, respectively. However, the differ-ence was significant only at a level of <.20so that at this point we cannot confidentlyreject the null hypothesis and recognize anattitude difference between the two groups.There was no significant correlation betweenattitude and comprehension score.

On the other informant questions, no signif-icant correlation appeared between com-prehension score and education or age. Forsex and experience with the language, how-ever, Pearson's r showed significant correla-tions. Because of possible interactions withthe factor GROup, a stepwise multiple re-

Correlation Sig. t value DF Sig.(Pearson'sr)

) .243 <.05 2.07 68 <.05t .444 <.01 4.12 69 <.01

.430 <.01 3.96 69 <.01

.320 <.01 2.81 69 <.01-.337 <.01 -2.96 68 <.01.193 <.05 1.63 69 <.10

<NS)

851MUTUAL INIEWGIBIUTY OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE

Figure 1: Average ListeningComprension Scores (per cent)

All Four Readings Combined100908070605040302010o

BraziliansSpanish

57.S,*,41.K

Figure 2: Average ListeningComprehension Scores (per cent)

Each of Four Readings

10090807060SO40302010o

Brazilians 58.1,*,Spanish 50.4,*,

wa Spanish- Brazilians

4O.S,*, 5O.K 6O.5'*'26.2'J> 76.1,*, 50.6,*,

j ]Figure 3: Average Listening

Comprehension Scores (per cent)Three Readings (without "Ecuador")

100908070605040302010o

wa Spanish- Brazilians

BraziliansSpanish

58.I'*'50.4,*,

gression test was run of GROup, SEX, andEXPERIENCE with SCORE dependent.Table 2 shows the results ofthat test. GROUP.and EXPERIENCE entered the model as sig-nificant predictors for SCORE, with 27% ofthe variation explained by them, while SEX

Table 2: Stepwise Multiple Regression

GROUP. EXPERIENCE. SEX with SCORE(without "Ecuador")

RegressionResidual

DF2

66

Analysis of VarianceSS MS F Sig.

ii,.29 29.14 12.3 <.001156.80 2.37

GROUPEXPERIENCE(Constant)

Variables in the EquationB T Sig.T

1.35 3.59 <.0011.02 2.84 <.011.72 2.43 <.05

showed no significance in predicting com-prehension score. (The two groups were notbalanced for sex, with most of the males inthe Spanish group.) The correlation of .304at the <.01 level of significance, therefore,indicates that experience with the other lan-guage (use in the family, study, travel, etc.)is a positive factor in comprehension, surelyno surprise.

Discussion

The results suggest a conditional affirma-tive response to the first questions posed atthe outset: Yes, Spanish and Portuguese aremutually intelligible,but at a levelofonlyabout50% to 60%, at least as measured on thistype of passive listening to electronically re-produced voices. It is precisely this type oflistening, as mentioned above, that is involvedin airport announcements and TV interviews,where policy decisions have to be made.

In a face-to-face conversational setting re-sults may be rather different, perhaps aidedby the visual contact and the direct transmis-sion of the voice, but hindered by the needto respond actively upon but a single hearingand by a more casual speech style than thatused in recorded readings.

It is obvious that level of comprehensionis greatly affected by subject mattex; and prob-ably many other factors, as evidenced in thereversal of the direction of correlation shownby reading number three and by the varianceamong the other readings as well.

As to the third question, concerning thedirection of higher comprehension, this worksupports the common belief that Portuguesespeakers understand Spanish better than vice-versa. Howevex; the difference is not over-whelming, and can be greatly affected by indi-vidual factors. The tendency is confirmed

.,- 852 HISPANIA72 DECEMBER19B9

statistically, but it is perhaps an exaggeration(at least for Brazil) to asswne that Portuguesespeakers "have a natural comprehension abil-ity of Spanish" but that their Portuguese re-sponses will not be understood by Spanishspeakers, as our guidebook indicates.

The informant background questionssuggest that the only factor that correlateswith comprehension is past contact with thelanguage. A larger sample wouldbe necessaryto confirm any subtle c:Jjfferencethat mightexist for age, sex, or education.

The attitude question may present a sur-prise in rwt showing distaste for Spanishamong Portuguese speakers, since many Bra-zilians, at least in the United States, expressan aversion to Spanish. It is quite possiblethat this negative feeling is not conunon inBrazil, rather appearing among Braziliansafter they come to this country and tired ofbeing taken as Spanish speakers and beingexpected to speak that language. A survey oflanguage attitudes among Brazilians outsideof Brazil would be in order.

This research supports the cause of edu-cators who fear the inappropriateness

of standard ACTFL Guidelines in the profi-ciency testing of Spanish-speaking Por-tuguese students. The 40 to 50 percent ofcomprehension score attained by untutoredlisteners would have an enormous invalidatingeffect on any testing program that ignored thefactor: On the other hand, the same level ofcomprehension can be a very positive forcein the Natural Approach classroom and wouldsupport the designation of special classes de-signed to take full advantage of it.. NOTES

IA preliminary version of this research was presentedat the 1986 Annual Meeting of the AATSP in Madrid.

'One such dinner~table story is this: President Dutrais visitingArgentina and is welcomed by President Peron:"iLa Argentina es suya!" Dutra answers him: "Nao sepreocupe, Presidente. 0 Brasil tambem esta cheio depoeira." [Peron: '~entina is yours" ('dirty' in Por-tuguese); Dutra: "Don't worry, President. Brazil is tunofdust000:1 ..

'Special acknowledgment is made to Prof. JohnSchmitz of the Pontiffcia Universidade Cat6Hca de S.Paulo, to Prof. ¥.IIfridoDel Carlo of the Universidade deSao Paulo and Charlotte AI-Jamal,Director of the EnglishLanguage Institute of Florida International University,for their kind assistance.

41express appreciation for the help of DI: PauletteJohnson, Statistical Consultant at Florida InternationalUniversity, who checked the statistics and made sugges-tions for their presentation.

. WORKSCITED

ACTFL [American Council on the Teaching of ForeignLanguages). '~CTFL Proficiency Guidelines 1986:'In Defining and Developing Projiciency: Guidelines,Implementations, and Concepts. Ed by Heidi Byrnesand Michael Canale. Linco1nwood, IL: NationalTextbook Company, 1987. 15-24.

Ellison, Fred P. and Norwood Andrews. "Portuguese inthe High Schools:' In A Handbook for Teachers ofSpanish and PDrluguese. Ed. by D. D. Walsh.Lexington, MA, 1969.

Ellison, Fred. P. et a1. Modern PDrluguese. New York:Knopf, 1971.

Entwistle, William.Aspects of Language. 1953.Jebsen, H. and Steven H. Biel, eds. Let's Go: The Budget

Guide to Spain, Portugal and Morocco.New York:St.Martin, 1986.

Jensen, John B. "Evaluating Portuguese Performance ofSpanish-Speaking Students:' In Negotiatingfor Mean-ing: Papers in ForeignLanguage Teachingand Testing.Ed by Dale Koike and Antonio SimOes. Austin: TIC.Papers in Foreign Language Education. 1989, forth-coming.

Knorre, et a1. Puntos de Partida. 2nd ed, Instructor'sed. New York: Random House, 1985.

Krashen, Steven and Tracy D. Terrell. The Natural Ap-proach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Ox-ford and New York: Pergamon, 1983.

Tunberlake, Cotten. "Portugal Still Wary of ClosestNeighbor: Report from PortugaI:' TheMiami Herald,May 31, 1989, p. 2A.