Word when two people use two different languages in a conversation





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
17
down vote

favorite
1












Is there a word that describes or denotes a type of conversation in which two speakers speak two different languages.



In our country, Pakistan, there are approximately 75 languages, from which Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi are common, excluding English.



So today I found two women speaking two different languages. For example:



Speaker 1 has Urdu as their mother tongue.



Speaker 2 has Sindhi as their mother tongue.



Speaker 1 and 2 spoke their own mother tongue, which are different (Urdu and Sindhi) but both can understand each other's language.



I thought that this is known as "intermingling conversation," or a "code switching." In my opinion, we can't use such words because code-switching refers "shifting completely to the other language for a word, a phrase or sentence, and then revert back to the base language."



Example sentences:





  • They were in a bus and had [adjective] conversation.


  • They were in a bus and had [noun or noun-phrase for such conversation].







I agree that the question (which is suspected as a duplicate one to this question) is really a duplicate, but its single answer still doesn't satisfy all. In that question, the phrase "bilingual dialogue" was suggested, which I (and others may) think that this refers to the code switching as well, which I don't want here. Some words confuse the readers which sense do they mean.



I would also love to quote the comment of @Lambie regarding the term "bilingual" over here:




"Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively."











share|improve this question




















  • 3




    I suggest you find a Canadian forum somewhere. They are a bilingual nation (English and French). In Britain I'm not aware of such a word, this is probably for the historical reason that for centuries we almost always spoke in a single language - English! The nearest adjective I can suggest for your word is "bilingual" but maybe the Canadians can do better.
    – chasly from UK
    17 hours ago








  • 2




    You’re quite right about code switching – it’s definitely not that. I’ve done this many a time myself (it’s reasonably common in Scandinavia, whose languages are all more or less mutually intelligible, for everyone to just speak their own language when communicating across borders), but I’ve never heard a name for it, nor ever really thought about there not being one.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    17 hours ago






  • 4




    A Star Wars conversation?
    – colmde
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    Very good question. A linked idea is when someone who speaks two languages easily and mixes them within their speech (for example, because there is a more precise word in one language than the other). I'm not sure of a word for that either, aside from bilingual.
    – Dan
    15 hours ago






  • 4




    @Dan That is "code switching": "Oh" said the Mexican immigrant in New York, "you mean when I start a sentence in English et se termine en espagnol?"
    – Martin Bonner
    12 hours ago

















up vote
17
down vote

favorite
1












Is there a word that describes or denotes a type of conversation in which two speakers speak two different languages.



In our country, Pakistan, there are approximately 75 languages, from which Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi are common, excluding English.



So today I found two women speaking two different languages. For example:



Speaker 1 has Urdu as their mother tongue.



Speaker 2 has Sindhi as their mother tongue.



Speaker 1 and 2 spoke their own mother tongue, which are different (Urdu and Sindhi) but both can understand each other's language.



I thought that this is known as "intermingling conversation," or a "code switching." In my opinion, we can't use such words because code-switching refers "shifting completely to the other language for a word, a phrase or sentence, and then revert back to the base language."



Example sentences:





  • They were in a bus and had [adjective] conversation.


  • They were in a bus and had [noun or noun-phrase for such conversation].







I agree that the question (which is suspected as a duplicate one to this question) is really a duplicate, but its single answer still doesn't satisfy all. In that question, the phrase "bilingual dialogue" was suggested, which I (and others may) think that this refers to the code switching as well, which I don't want here. Some words confuse the readers which sense do they mean.



I would also love to quote the comment of @Lambie regarding the term "bilingual" over here:




"Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively."











share|improve this question




















  • 3




    I suggest you find a Canadian forum somewhere. They are a bilingual nation (English and French). In Britain I'm not aware of such a word, this is probably for the historical reason that for centuries we almost always spoke in a single language - English! The nearest adjective I can suggest for your word is "bilingual" but maybe the Canadians can do better.
    – chasly from UK
    17 hours ago








  • 2




    You’re quite right about code switching – it’s definitely not that. I’ve done this many a time myself (it’s reasonably common in Scandinavia, whose languages are all more or less mutually intelligible, for everyone to just speak their own language when communicating across borders), but I’ve never heard a name for it, nor ever really thought about there not being one.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    17 hours ago






  • 4




    A Star Wars conversation?
    – colmde
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    Very good question. A linked idea is when someone who speaks two languages easily and mixes them within their speech (for example, because there is a more precise word in one language than the other). I'm not sure of a word for that either, aside from bilingual.
    – Dan
    15 hours ago






  • 4




    @Dan That is "code switching": "Oh" said the Mexican immigrant in New York, "you mean when I start a sentence in English et se termine en espagnol?"
    – Martin Bonner
    12 hours ago













up vote
17
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
17
down vote

favorite
1






1





Is there a word that describes or denotes a type of conversation in which two speakers speak two different languages.



In our country, Pakistan, there are approximately 75 languages, from which Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi are common, excluding English.



So today I found two women speaking two different languages. For example:



Speaker 1 has Urdu as their mother tongue.



Speaker 2 has Sindhi as their mother tongue.



Speaker 1 and 2 spoke their own mother tongue, which are different (Urdu and Sindhi) but both can understand each other's language.



I thought that this is known as "intermingling conversation," or a "code switching." In my opinion, we can't use such words because code-switching refers "shifting completely to the other language for a word, a phrase or sentence, and then revert back to the base language."



Example sentences:





  • They were in a bus and had [adjective] conversation.


  • They were in a bus and had [noun or noun-phrase for such conversation].







I agree that the question (which is suspected as a duplicate one to this question) is really a duplicate, but its single answer still doesn't satisfy all. In that question, the phrase "bilingual dialogue" was suggested, which I (and others may) think that this refers to the code switching as well, which I don't want here. Some words confuse the readers which sense do they mean.



I would also love to quote the comment of @Lambie regarding the term "bilingual" over here:




"Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively."











share|improve this question















Is there a word that describes or denotes a type of conversation in which two speakers speak two different languages.



In our country, Pakistan, there are approximately 75 languages, from which Urdu, Punjabi and Sindhi are common, excluding English.



So today I found two women speaking two different languages. For example:



Speaker 1 has Urdu as their mother tongue.



Speaker 2 has Sindhi as their mother tongue.



Speaker 1 and 2 spoke their own mother tongue, which are different (Urdu and Sindhi) but both can understand each other's language.



I thought that this is known as "intermingling conversation," or a "code switching." In my opinion, we can't use such words because code-switching refers "shifting completely to the other language for a word, a phrase or sentence, and then revert back to the base language."



Example sentences:





  • They were in a bus and had [adjective] conversation.


  • They were in a bus and had [noun or noun-phrase for such conversation].







I agree that the question (which is suspected as a duplicate one to this question) is really a duplicate, but its single answer still doesn't satisfy all. In that question, the phrase "bilingual dialogue" was suggested, which I (and others may) think that this refers to the code switching as well, which I don't want here. Some words confuse the readers which sense do they mean.



I would also love to quote the comment of @Lambie regarding the term "bilingual" over here:




"Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively."








single-word-requests phrase-requests






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 31 mins ago

























asked 18 hours ago









Ahmed

3,00811443




3,00811443








  • 3




    I suggest you find a Canadian forum somewhere. They are a bilingual nation (English and French). In Britain I'm not aware of such a word, this is probably for the historical reason that for centuries we almost always spoke in a single language - English! The nearest adjective I can suggest for your word is "bilingual" but maybe the Canadians can do better.
    – chasly from UK
    17 hours ago








  • 2




    You’re quite right about code switching – it’s definitely not that. I’ve done this many a time myself (it’s reasonably common in Scandinavia, whose languages are all more or less mutually intelligible, for everyone to just speak their own language when communicating across borders), but I’ve never heard a name for it, nor ever really thought about there not being one.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    17 hours ago






  • 4




    A Star Wars conversation?
    – colmde
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    Very good question. A linked idea is when someone who speaks two languages easily and mixes them within their speech (for example, because there is a more precise word in one language than the other). I'm not sure of a word for that either, aside from bilingual.
    – Dan
    15 hours ago






  • 4




    @Dan That is "code switching": "Oh" said the Mexican immigrant in New York, "you mean when I start a sentence in English et se termine en espagnol?"
    – Martin Bonner
    12 hours ago














  • 3




    I suggest you find a Canadian forum somewhere. They are a bilingual nation (English and French). In Britain I'm not aware of such a word, this is probably for the historical reason that for centuries we almost always spoke in a single language - English! The nearest adjective I can suggest for your word is "bilingual" but maybe the Canadians can do better.
    – chasly from UK
    17 hours ago








  • 2




    You’re quite right about code switching – it’s definitely not that. I’ve done this many a time myself (it’s reasonably common in Scandinavia, whose languages are all more or less mutually intelligible, for everyone to just speak their own language when communicating across borders), but I’ve never heard a name for it, nor ever really thought about there not being one.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    17 hours ago






  • 4




    A Star Wars conversation?
    – colmde
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    Very good question. A linked idea is when someone who speaks two languages easily and mixes them within their speech (for example, because there is a more precise word in one language than the other). I'm not sure of a word for that either, aside from bilingual.
    – Dan
    15 hours ago






  • 4




    @Dan That is "code switching": "Oh" said the Mexican immigrant in New York, "you mean when I start a sentence in English et se termine en espagnol?"
    – Martin Bonner
    12 hours ago








3




3




I suggest you find a Canadian forum somewhere. They are a bilingual nation (English and French). In Britain I'm not aware of such a word, this is probably for the historical reason that for centuries we almost always spoke in a single language - English! The nearest adjective I can suggest for your word is "bilingual" but maybe the Canadians can do better.
– chasly from UK
17 hours ago






I suggest you find a Canadian forum somewhere. They are a bilingual nation (English and French). In Britain I'm not aware of such a word, this is probably for the historical reason that for centuries we almost always spoke in a single language - English! The nearest adjective I can suggest for your word is "bilingual" but maybe the Canadians can do better.
– chasly from UK
17 hours ago






2




2




You’re quite right about code switching – it’s definitely not that. I’ve done this many a time myself (it’s reasonably common in Scandinavia, whose languages are all more or less mutually intelligible, for everyone to just speak their own language when communicating across borders), but I’ve never heard a name for it, nor ever really thought about there not being one.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
17 hours ago




You’re quite right about code switching – it’s definitely not that. I’ve done this many a time myself (it’s reasonably common in Scandinavia, whose languages are all more or less mutually intelligible, for everyone to just speak their own language when communicating across borders), but I’ve never heard a name for it, nor ever really thought about there not being one.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
17 hours ago




4




4




A Star Wars conversation?
– colmde
16 hours ago




A Star Wars conversation?
– colmde
16 hours ago




2




2




Very good question. A linked idea is when someone who speaks two languages easily and mixes them within their speech (for example, because there is a more precise word in one language than the other). I'm not sure of a word for that either, aside from bilingual.
– Dan
15 hours ago




Very good question. A linked idea is when someone who speaks two languages easily and mixes them within their speech (for example, because there is a more precise word in one language than the other). I'm not sure of a word for that either, aside from bilingual.
– Dan
15 hours ago




4




4




@Dan That is "code switching": "Oh" said the Mexican immigrant in New York, "you mean when I start a sentence in English et se termine en espagnol?"
– Martin Bonner
12 hours ago




@Dan That is "code switching": "Oh" said the Mexican immigrant in New York, "you mean when I start a sentence in English et se termine en espagnol?"
– Martin Bonner
12 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
12
down vote













One relevant term is mutual intelligibility. From Wikipedia:




In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort.




Note that in linguistics "mutual intelligibility" generally refers to inherent characteristics of the languages, rather than special knowledge on the part of the speakers—that is, it's usually used for related language "pairs" like Portuguese and Spanish or Swedish and Danish,1 but generally wouldn't be applied to, say, an English speaker who knows some Mandarin and a Mandarin speaker who knows some English speaking to one another in their own languages.



With that caveat, I think the adjectival form, mutually intelligible, could be used for your situation. The plain meaning of the phrase is fairly transparent and would seem flexible enough to encompass the English/Mandarin situation described above, particularly as it is also used in non-linguistic contexts to describe communication and conversations. Some examples of use, both technical and non-technical (bolding added):




"Are Urdu and Sindhi mutually intelligible languages?"




—Yahoo Answers question (opinions in answers are mixed)




In my experience of observing Spaniards and Italians talking in their respective languages to each another, it is possible for them to have a mutually intelligible conversation as long as they speak clearly.




— Conor Clyne, "How different or similar are Italian and Spanish?" Tsar Experience, August 25, 2016 (blog entry)




Whatever the differences between the Stoics and the Christians, they can be put into mutually intelligible conversation.




—Christopher Kavin Rowe, One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions, 2016



Another term that comes up in this context is cross-language (or cross-linguistic). I haven't found a formal definition for this term, but it is also fairly transparent. It collocates with "mutual intelligibility" but also appears in contexts where, for example, the participants in the conversation are employing an interpreter. A couple of examples of use (bolding added):




[W]e aimed to assess the cross-linguistic intelligibility between the related languages as it is in actual practice, i.e. including the effects of the participant’s education. Our study therefore offers an overview of the cross-language intelligibility between related languages . . . .




—Charlotte Gooskens, Vincent J. van Heuven, Jelena Golubović, Anja Schüppert, Femke Swarte & Stefanie Voigt (2018) Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe, International Journal of Multilingualism, 15:2, 169-193, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185




People using Skype or web applications can now have a cross-language conversation, each speaking in a different language.




—"Real-time Speech Translation in 23 Languages for Business; ReadSpeaker Adds Text-to-Speech Voices to Translate Your World's Voice-to-Subtitles Software", Monday, November 26, 2018 (press release)



So for your example, you could say something like





  • They were in a bus and had a mutually intelligible, cross-language conversation.

  • They were in a bus and had a cross-language conversation.

  • They were in a bus and had a mutually-intelligible conversation in Urdu and Sindhi (respectively).






1See the May 28, 2014 Language Log post "Mutual intelligibility" and especially its comments for an informal discussion of the degree of mutual intelligibility of dozens of language pairs.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    +1 But I'd also note that "mutually intelligible" is a property of the two languages, not of the speakers. OP implies this may be the situation by mentioning the Pakistani languages, but as stated the two ladies could be able to understand the other language (but not speak it) through personal familiarity rather than due to the mutual intelligibility of the two languages.
    – ZachP
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    @ZachP Yes, absolutely that's the case in technical linguistic terms. That's what I was trying to get at in the paragraph after the definition.
    – 1006a
    11 hours ago










  • I totally misread that paragraph and upon re-reading it I'm not even sure how! Mea culpa
    – ZachP
    10 hours ago










  • No worries--that paragraph is kind of wall-of-textish, so probably I should rewrite it for clarity. @ZachP
    – 1006a
    8 hours ago










  • Yiddish and Hebrew aren't mutually intelligible at all, but one person speaking Yiddish and the other Hebrew but understanding each other is a case for the OP. Or Mandarin and Cantonese, or Scots and English. I don't see how mutual intelligibility is relevant.
    – Mitch
    7 hours ago


















up vote
8
down vote













I believe the most accurate word you'll find for the conversation itself is "bilingual." As in:




The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation




However the inability of the two speakers to fully command both languages is a property of the speaker, not the conversation. The term for this inability is "receptive bilingualism." You would need to change up the syntax a bit to clarify the situation:




The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation, however both were only receptively bilingual in the other's language.




"Passive speaker" is another way to refer to this type of speaker, however this could also imply that the speaker is simply non-aggressive in their speech.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    No señor, nope. Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively.
    – Lambie
    4 hours ago


















up vote
7
down vote













It has been called code-mixing in academic papers.




Code-mixing is the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in speech.




Wikipedia






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Bill Angove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 6




    I believe this refers to several languages being used by one speaker in their speech. It does not appear to cover the case where one speaker consistently uses one language and the other one consistently uses another language, while they both understand both languages.
    – GSerg
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    I believe GSerg is right. Code-switching and code-mixing are not always kept separate at all, but even when they are, they normally refer to the same speaker drawing on multiple languages, rather than to multiple speakers drawing from one language each. In database structure terms, code-switching/-mixing is a one-to-many (or many-to-one) relation, whereas this question is asking about one-to-one relations with unique foreign key constraints.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    This answer would be even better if it linked to, or referenced, the DOI of one or more of the academic papers in which this term is used.
    – shoover
    11 hours ago










  • Did you mean to say 'code-switching'? That refers to a single person using multiple languages (that they know the other person understands. The OP is talking about when one person uses one language solely, and the other another one alone, but they both understand the other. In such a situation, code-switching may well occur but not necessarily.
    – Mitch
    7 hours ago










  • code switching or mixing refers to a single-person thing. It does not involve two people and languages are codes, anyway. Code switching and mixing is intra-lingual not inter-lingual.
    – Lambie
    4 hours ago


















up vote
0
down vote













Bilingualism and multilingual come to mind.



The Irish also have a bilingualist population. While I am American by birth, my family surname is that of one of Ulsters last remaining drudic septs. Many of my relatives who reside in Ireland are all bilingual and interchangeably speak Gaelic and British English. As a result of my wanting to keep tradition, I too speak/write/read both Gaelic and English. In additon to that I also know french, German, Spanish, Farsi, and Klingon. 😅






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Syntaxxx Err0r is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
    – Mark Beadles
    7 hours ago










  • You had me at the words but lost me with 'drudic'. If you took out all the personal references (but maybe left in what those personal information implies) and just say 'bilingual conversation', you just might have it.
    – Mitch
    7 hours ago


















up vote
-1
down vote













There is a concept of diglossia.




The use of two markedly different varieties of a language in different social situations, such as a formal variety at work and an informal variety at home. [American Heritage]




Usually this term is used when the same people are speaking both languages (e.g. people who speak an official form of the language in formal occasions and a dialect the rest of the time; or else speak English at work and another language the rest of the time).



By stretching it a little, we could also call this particular situation (where individuals speak a single language but understand two) as a case of diglossia?



In this particular case there does not seem to be any high or low language, but simply two persons from different backgrounds speaking different languages (hence it is a situation of multiculturalism) but sufficiently familiar with the other language that they have a passive knowledge of it.



What is interesting to guess, is how this situation might evolve in time: by one language supplanting the other? Or a fusion of the two, similar to what happened to Middle English? Or a third language (as English) taking over?






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f474511%2fword-when-two-people-use-two-different-languages-in-a-conversation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    12
    down vote













    One relevant term is mutual intelligibility. From Wikipedia:




    In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort.




    Note that in linguistics "mutual intelligibility" generally refers to inherent characteristics of the languages, rather than special knowledge on the part of the speakers—that is, it's usually used for related language "pairs" like Portuguese and Spanish or Swedish and Danish,1 but generally wouldn't be applied to, say, an English speaker who knows some Mandarin and a Mandarin speaker who knows some English speaking to one another in their own languages.



    With that caveat, I think the adjectival form, mutually intelligible, could be used for your situation. The plain meaning of the phrase is fairly transparent and would seem flexible enough to encompass the English/Mandarin situation described above, particularly as it is also used in non-linguistic contexts to describe communication and conversations. Some examples of use, both technical and non-technical (bolding added):




    "Are Urdu and Sindhi mutually intelligible languages?"




    —Yahoo Answers question (opinions in answers are mixed)




    In my experience of observing Spaniards and Italians talking in their respective languages to each another, it is possible for them to have a mutually intelligible conversation as long as they speak clearly.




    — Conor Clyne, "How different or similar are Italian and Spanish?" Tsar Experience, August 25, 2016 (blog entry)




    Whatever the differences between the Stoics and the Christians, they can be put into mutually intelligible conversation.




    —Christopher Kavin Rowe, One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions, 2016



    Another term that comes up in this context is cross-language (or cross-linguistic). I haven't found a formal definition for this term, but it is also fairly transparent. It collocates with "mutual intelligibility" but also appears in contexts where, for example, the participants in the conversation are employing an interpreter. A couple of examples of use (bolding added):




    [W]e aimed to assess the cross-linguistic intelligibility between the related languages as it is in actual practice, i.e. including the effects of the participant’s education. Our study therefore offers an overview of the cross-language intelligibility between related languages . . . .




    —Charlotte Gooskens, Vincent J. van Heuven, Jelena Golubović, Anja Schüppert, Femke Swarte & Stefanie Voigt (2018) Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe, International Journal of Multilingualism, 15:2, 169-193, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185




    People using Skype or web applications can now have a cross-language conversation, each speaking in a different language.




    —"Real-time Speech Translation in 23 Languages for Business; ReadSpeaker Adds Text-to-Speech Voices to Translate Your World's Voice-to-Subtitles Software", Monday, November 26, 2018 (press release)



    So for your example, you could say something like





    • They were in a bus and had a mutually intelligible, cross-language conversation.

    • They were in a bus and had a cross-language conversation.

    • They were in a bus and had a mutually-intelligible conversation in Urdu and Sindhi (respectively).






    1See the May 28, 2014 Language Log post "Mutual intelligibility" and especially its comments for an informal discussion of the degree of mutual intelligibility of dozens of language pairs.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      +1 But I'd also note that "mutually intelligible" is a property of the two languages, not of the speakers. OP implies this may be the situation by mentioning the Pakistani languages, but as stated the two ladies could be able to understand the other language (but not speak it) through personal familiarity rather than due to the mutual intelligibility of the two languages.
      – ZachP
      11 hours ago






    • 1




      @ZachP Yes, absolutely that's the case in technical linguistic terms. That's what I was trying to get at in the paragraph after the definition.
      – 1006a
      11 hours ago










    • I totally misread that paragraph and upon re-reading it I'm not even sure how! Mea culpa
      – ZachP
      10 hours ago










    • No worries--that paragraph is kind of wall-of-textish, so probably I should rewrite it for clarity. @ZachP
      – 1006a
      8 hours ago










    • Yiddish and Hebrew aren't mutually intelligible at all, but one person speaking Yiddish and the other Hebrew but understanding each other is a case for the OP. Or Mandarin and Cantonese, or Scots and English. I don't see how mutual intelligibility is relevant.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago















    up vote
    12
    down vote













    One relevant term is mutual intelligibility. From Wikipedia:




    In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort.




    Note that in linguistics "mutual intelligibility" generally refers to inherent characteristics of the languages, rather than special knowledge on the part of the speakers—that is, it's usually used for related language "pairs" like Portuguese and Spanish or Swedish and Danish,1 but generally wouldn't be applied to, say, an English speaker who knows some Mandarin and a Mandarin speaker who knows some English speaking to one another in their own languages.



    With that caveat, I think the adjectival form, mutually intelligible, could be used for your situation. The plain meaning of the phrase is fairly transparent and would seem flexible enough to encompass the English/Mandarin situation described above, particularly as it is also used in non-linguistic contexts to describe communication and conversations. Some examples of use, both technical and non-technical (bolding added):




    "Are Urdu and Sindhi mutually intelligible languages?"




    —Yahoo Answers question (opinions in answers are mixed)




    In my experience of observing Spaniards and Italians talking in their respective languages to each another, it is possible for them to have a mutually intelligible conversation as long as they speak clearly.




    — Conor Clyne, "How different or similar are Italian and Spanish?" Tsar Experience, August 25, 2016 (blog entry)




    Whatever the differences between the Stoics and the Christians, they can be put into mutually intelligible conversation.




    —Christopher Kavin Rowe, One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions, 2016



    Another term that comes up in this context is cross-language (or cross-linguistic). I haven't found a formal definition for this term, but it is also fairly transparent. It collocates with "mutual intelligibility" but also appears in contexts where, for example, the participants in the conversation are employing an interpreter. A couple of examples of use (bolding added):




    [W]e aimed to assess the cross-linguistic intelligibility between the related languages as it is in actual practice, i.e. including the effects of the participant’s education. Our study therefore offers an overview of the cross-language intelligibility between related languages . . . .




    —Charlotte Gooskens, Vincent J. van Heuven, Jelena Golubović, Anja Schüppert, Femke Swarte & Stefanie Voigt (2018) Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe, International Journal of Multilingualism, 15:2, 169-193, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185




    People using Skype or web applications can now have a cross-language conversation, each speaking in a different language.




    —"Real-time Speech Translation in 23 Languages for Business; ReadSpeaker Adds Text-to-Speech Voices to Translate Your World's Voice-to-Subtitles Software", Monday, November 26, 2018 (press release)



    So for your example, you could say something like





    • They were in a bus and had a mutually intelligible, cross-language conversation.

    • They were in a bus and had a cross-language conversation.

    • They were in a bus and had a mutually-intelligible conversation in Urdu and Sindhi (respectively).






    1See the May 28, 2014 Language Log post "Mutual intelligibility" and especially its comments for an informal discussion of the degree of mutual intelligibility of dozens of language pairs.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      +1 But I'd also note that "mutually intelligible" is a property of the two languages, not of the speakers. OP implies this may be the situation by mentioning the Pakistani languages, but as stated the two ladies could be able to understand the other language (but not speak it) through personal familiarity rather than due to the mutual intelligibility of the two languages.
      – ZachP
      11 hours ago






    • 1




      @ZachP Yes, absolutely that's the case in technical linguistic terms. That's what I was trying to get at in the paragraph after the definition.
      – 1006a
      11 hours ago










    • I totally misread that paragraph and upon re-reading it I'm not even sure how! Mea culpa
      – ZachP
      10 hours ago










    • No worries--that paragraph is kind of wall-of-textish, so probably I should rewrite it for clarity. @ZachP
      – 1006a
      8 hours ago










    • Yiddish and Hebrew aren't mutually intelligible at all, but one person speaking Yiddish and the other Hebrew but understanding each other is a case for the OP. Or Mandarin and Cantonese, or Scots and English. I don't see how mutual intelligibility is relevant.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago













    up vote
    12
    down vote










    up vote
    12
    down vote









    One relevant term is mutual intelligibility. From Wikipedia:




    In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort.




    Note that in linguistics "mutual intelligibility" generally refers to inherent characteristics of the languages, rather than special knowledge on the part of the speakers—that is, it's usually used for related language "pairs" like Portuguese and Spanish or Swedish and Danish,1 but generally wouldn't be applied to, say, an English speaker who knows some Mandarin and a Mandarin speaker who knows some English speaking to one another in their own languages.



    With that caveat, I think the adjectival form, mutually intelligible, could be used for your situation. The plain meaning of the phrase is fairly transparent and would seem flexible enough to encompass the English/Mandarin situation described above, particularly as it is also used in non-linguistic contexts to describe communication and conversations. Some examples of use, both technical and non-technical (bolding added):




    "Are Urdu and Sindhi mutually intelligible languages?"




    —Yahoo Answers question (opinions in answers are mixed)




    In my experience of observing Spaniards and Italians talking in their respective languages to each another, it is possible for them to have a mutually intelligible conversation as long as they speak clearly.




    — Conor Clyne, "How different or similar are Italian and Spanish?" Tsar Experience, August 25, 2016 (blog entry)




    Whatever the differences between the Stoics and the Christians, they can be put into mutually intelligible conversation.




    —Christopher Kavin Rowe, One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions, 2016



    Another term that comes up in this context is cross-language (or cross-linguistic). I haven't found a formal definition for this term, but it is also fairly transparent. It collocates with "mutual intelligibility" but also appears in contexts where, for example, the participants in the conversation are employing an interpreter. A couple of examples of use (bolding added):




    [W]e aimed to assess the cross-linguistic intelligibility between the related languages as it is in actual practice, i.e. including the effects of the participant’s education. Our study therefore offers an overview of the cross-language intelligibility between related languages . . . .




    —Charlotte Gooskens, Vincent J. van Heuven, Jelena Golubović, Anja Schüppert, Femke Swarte & Stefanie Voigt (2018) Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe, International Journal of Multilingualism, 15:2, 169-193, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185




    People using Skype or web applications can now have a cross-language conversation, each speaking in a different language.




    —"Real-time Speech Translation in 23 Languages for Business; ReadSpeaker Adds Text-to-Speech Voices to Translate Your World's Voice-to-Subtitles Software", Monday, November 26, 2018 (press release)



    So for your example, you could say something like





    • They were in a bus and had a mutually intelligible, cross-language conversation.

    • They were in a bus and had a cross-language conversation.

    • They were in a bus and had a mutually-intelligible conversation in Urdu and Sindhi (respectively).






    1See the May 28, 2014 Language Log post "Mutual intelligibility" and especially its comments for an informal discussion of the degree of mutual intelligibility of dozens of language pairs.






    share|improve this answer














    One relevant term is mutual intelligibility. From Wikipedia:




    In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort.




    Note that in linguistics "mutual intelligibility" generally refers to inherent characteristics of the languages, rather than special knowledge on the part of the speakers—that is, it's usually used for related language "pairs" like Portuguese and Spanish or Swedish and Danish,1 but generally wouldn't be applied to, say, an English speaker who knows some Mandarin and a Mandarin speaker who knows some English speaking to one another in their own languages.



    With that caveat, I think the adjectival form, mutually intelligible, could be used for your situation. The plain meaning of the phrase is fairly transparent and would seem flexible enough to encompass the English/Mandarin situation described above, particularly as it is also used in non-linguistic contexts to describe communication and conversations. Some examples of use, both technical and non-technical (bolding added):




    "Are Urdu and Sindhi mutually intelligible languages?"




    —Yahoo Answers question (opinions in answers are mixed)




    In my experience of observing Spaniards and Italians talking in their respective languages to each another, it is possible for them to have a mutually intelligible conversation as long as they speak clearly.




    — Conor Clyne, "How different or similar are Italian and Spanish?" Tsar Experience, August 25, 2016 (blog entry)




    Whatever the differences between the Stoics and the Christians, they can be put into mutually intelligible conversation.




    —Christopher Kavin Rowe, One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions, 2016



    Another term that comes up in this context is cross-language (or cross-linguistic). I haven't found a formal definition for this term, but it is also fairly transparent. It collocates with "mutual intelligibility" but also appears in contexts where, for example, the participants in the conversation are employing an interpreter. A couple of examples of use (bolding added):




    [W]e aimed to assess the cross-linguistic intelligibility between the related languages as it is in actual practice, i.e. including the effects of the participant’s education. Our study therefore offers an overview of the cross-language intelligibility between related languages . . . .




    —Charlotte Gooskens, Vincent J. van Heuven, Jelena Golubović, Anja Schüppert, Femke Swarte & Stefanie Voigt (2018) Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe, International Journal of Multilingualism, 15:2, 169-193, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185




    People using Skype or web applications can now have a cross-language conversation, each speaking in a different language.




    —"Real-time Speech Translation in 23 Languages for Business; ReadSpeaker Adds Text-to-Speech Voices to Translate Your World's Voice-to-Subtitles Software", Monday, November 26, 2018 (press release)



    So for your example, you could say something like





    • They were in a bus and had a mutually intelligible, cross-language conversation.

    • They were in a bus and had a cross-language conversation.

    • They were in a bus and had a mutually-intelligible conversation in Urdu and Sindhi (respectively).






    1See the May 28, 2014 Language Log post "Mutual intelligibility" and especially its comments for an informal discussion of the degree of mutual intelligibility of dozens of language pairs.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 7 hours ago

























    answered 11 hours ago









    1006a

    19.8k33585




    19.8k33585








    • 1




      +1 But I'd also note that "mutually intelligible" is a property of the two languages, not of the speakers. OP implies this may be the situation by mentioning the Pakistani languages, but as stated the two ladies could be able to understand the other language (but not speak it) through personal familiarity rather than due to the mutual intelligibility of the two languages.
      – ZachP
      11 hours ago






    • 1




      @ZachP Yes, absolutely that's the case in technical linguistic terms. That's what I was trying to get at in the paragraph after the definition.
      – 1006a
      11 hours ago










    • I totally misread that paragraph and upon re-reading it I'm not even sure how! Mea culpa
      – ZachP
      10 hours ago










    • No worries--that paragraph is kind of wall-of-textish, so probably I should rewrite it for clarity. @ZachP
      – 1006a
      8 hours ago










    • Yiddish and Hebrew aren't mutually intelligible at all, but one person speaking Yiddish and the other Hebrew but understanding each other is a case for the OP. Or Mandarin and Cantonese, or Scots and English. I don't see how mutual intelligibility is relevant.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago














    • 1




      +1 But I'd also note that "mutually intelligible" is a property of the two languages, not of the speakers. OP implies this may be the situation by mentioning the Pakistani languages, but as stated the two ladies could be able to understand the other language (but not speak it) through personal familiarity rather than due to the mutual intelligibility of the two languages.
      – ZachP
      11 hours ago






    • 1




      @ZachP Yes, absolutely that's the case in technical linguistic terms. That's what I was trying to get at in the paragraph after the definition.
      – 1006a
      11 hours ago










    • I totally misread that paragraph and upon re-reading it I'm not even sure how! Mea culpa
      – ZachP
      10 hours ago










    • No worries--that paragraph is kind of wall-of-textish, so probably I should rewrite it for clarity. @ZachP
      – 1006a
      8 hours ago










    • Yiddish and Hebrew aren't mutually intelligible at all, but one person speaking Yiddish and the other Hebrew but understanding each other is a case for the OP. Or Mandarin and Cantonese, or Scots and English. I don't see how mutual intelligibility is relevant.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago








    1




    1




    +1 But I'd also note that "mutually intelligible" is a property of the two languages, not of the speakers. OP implies this may be the situation by mentioning the Pakistani languages, but as stated the two ladies could be able to understand the other language (but not speak it) through personal familiarity rather than due to the mutual intelligibility of the two languages.
    – ZachP
    11 hours ago




    +1 But I'd also note that "mutually intelligible" is a property of the two languages, not of the speakers. OP implies this may be the situation by mentioning the Pakistani languages, but as stated the two ladies could be able to understand the other language (but not speak it) through personal familiarity rather than due to the mutual intelligibility of the two languages.
    – ZachP
    11 hours ago




    1




    1




    @ZachP Yes, absolutely that's the case in technical linguistic terms. That's what I was trying to get at in the paragraph after the definition.
    – 1006a
    11 hours ago




    @ZachP Yes, absolutely that's the case in technical linguistic terms. That's what I was trying to get at in the paragraph after the definition.
    – 1006a
    11 hours ago












    I totally misread that paragraph and upon re-reading it I'm not even sure how! Mea culpa
    – ZachP
    10 hours ago




    I totally misread that paragraph and upon re-reading it I'm not even sure how! Mea culpa
    – ZachP
    10 hours ago












    No worries--that paragraph is kind of wall-of-textish, so probably I should rewrite it for clarity. @ZachP
    – 1006a
    8 hours ago




    No worries--that paragraph is kind of wall-of-textish, so probably I should rewrite it for clarity. @ZachP
    – 1006a
    8 hours ago












    Yiddish and Hebrew aren't mutually intelligible at all, but one person speaking Yiddish and the other Hebrew but understanding each other is a case for the OP. Or Mandarin and Cantonese, or Scots and English. I don't see how mutual intelligibility is relevant.
    – Mitch
    7 hours ago




    Yiddish and Hebrew aren't mutually intelligible at all, but one person speaking Yiddish and the other Hebrew but understanding each other is a case for the OP. Or Mandarin and Cantonese, or Scots and English. I don't see how mutual intelligibility is relevant.
    – Mitch
    7 hours ago












    up vote
    8
    down vote













    I believe the most accurate word you'll find for the conversation itself is "bilingual." As in:




    The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation




    However the inability of the two speakers to fully command both languages is a property of the speaker, not the conversation. The term for this inability is "receptive bilingualism." You would need to change up the syntax a bit to clarify the situation:




    The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation, however both were only receptively bilingual in the other's language.




    "Passive speaker" is another way to refer to this type of speaker, however this could also imply that the speaker is simply non-aggressive in their speech.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 1




      No señor, nope. Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively.
      – Lambie
      4 hours ago















    up vote
    8
    down vote













    I believe the most accurate word you'll find for the conversation itself is "bilingual." As in:




    The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation




    However the inability of the two speakers to fully command both languages is a property of the speaker, not the conversation. The term for this inability is "receptive bilingualism." You would need to change up the syntax a bit to clarify the situation:




    The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation, however both were only receptively bilingual in the other's language.




    "Passive speaker" is another way to refer to this type of speaker, however this could also imply that the speaker is simply non-aggressive in their speech.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 1




      No señor, nope. Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively.
      – Lambie
      4 hours ago













    up vote
    8
    down vote










    up vote
    8
    down vote









    I believe the most accurate word you'll find for the conversation itself is "bilingual." As in:




    The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation




    However the inability of the two speakers to fully command both languages is a property of the speaker, not the conversation. The term for this inability is "receptive bilingualism." You would need to change up the syntax a bit to clarify the situation:




    The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation, however both were only receptively bilingual in the other's language.




    "Passive speaker" is another way to refer to this type of speaker, however this could also imply that the speaker is simply non-aggressive in their speech.






    share|improve this answer












    I believe the most accurate word you'll find for the conversation itself is "bilingual." As in:




    The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation




    However the inability of the two speakers to fully command both languages is a property of the speaker, not the conversation. The term for this inability is "receptive bilingualism." You would need to change up the syntax a bit to clarify the situation:




    The two ladies were having a bilingual conversation, however both were only receptively bilingual in the other's language.




    "Passive speaker" is another way to refer to this type of speaker, however this could also imply that the speaker is simply non-aggressive in their speech.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 11 hours ago









    ZachP

    38613




    38613








    • 1




      No señor, nope. Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively.
      – Lambie
      4 hours ago














    • 1




      No señor, nope. Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively.
      – Lambie
      4 hours ago








    1




    1




    No señor, nope. Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively.
    – Lambie
    4 hours ago




    No señor, nope. Bilingual refers to one person. Not two people each of whom has a passive knowledge of the other's language but do not speak it well enough to use it actively.
    – Lambie
    4 hours ago










    up vote
    7
    down vote













    It has been called code-mixing in academic papers.




    Code-mixing is the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in speech.




    Wikipedia






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Bill Angove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.














    • 6




      I believe this refers to several languages being used by one speaker in their speech. It does not appear to cover the case where one speaker consistently uses one language and the other one consistently uses another language, while they both understand both languages.
      – GSerg
      12 hours ago






    • 1




      I believe GSerg is right. Code-switching and code-mixing are not always kept separate at all, but even when they are, they normally refer to the same speaker drawing on multiple languages, rather than to multiple speakers drawing from one language each. In database structure terms, code-switching/-mixing is a one-to-many (or many-to-one) relation, whereas this question is asking about one-to-one relations with unique foreign key constraints.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      11 hours ago






    • 1




      This answer would be even better if it linked to, or referenced, the DOI of one or more of the academic papers in which this term is used.
      – shoover
      11 hours ago










    • Did you mean to say 'code-switching'? That refers to a single person using multiple languages (that they know the other person understands. The OP is talking about when one person uses one language solely, and the other another one alone, but they both understand the other. In such a situation, code-switching may well occur but not necessarily.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago










    • code switching or mixing refers to a single-person thing. It does not involve two people and languages are codes, anyway. Code switching and mixing is intra-lingual not inter-lingual.
      – Lambie
      4 hours ago















    up vote
    7
    down vote













    It has been called code-mixing in academic papers.




    Code-mixing is the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in speech.




    Wikipedia






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Bill Angove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.














    • 6




      I believe this refers to several languages being used by one speaker in their speech. It does not appear to cover the case where one speaker consistently uses one language and the other one consistently uses another language, while they both understand both languages.
      – GSerg
      12 hours ago






    • 1




      I believe GSerg is right. Code-switching and code-mixing are not always kept separate at all, but even when they are, they normally refer to the same speaker drawing on multiple languages, rather than to multiple speakers drawing from one language each. In database structure terms, code-switching/-mixing is a one-to-many (or many-to-one) relation, whereas this question is asking about one-to-one relations with unique foreign key constraints.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      11 hours ago






    • 1




      This answer would be even better if it linked to, or referenced, the DOI of one or more of the academic papers in which this term is used.
      – shoover
      11 hours ago










    • Did you mean to say 'code-switching'? That refers to a single person using multiple languages (that they know the other person understands. The OP is talking about when one person uses one language solely, and the other another one alone, but they both understand the other. In such a situation, code-switching may well occur but not necessarily.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago










    • code switching or mixing refers to a single-person thing. It does not involve two people and languages are codes, anyway. Code switching and mixing is intra-lingual not inter-lingual.
      – Lambie
      4 hours ago













    up vote
    7
    down vote










    up vote
    7
    down vote









    It has been called code-mixing in academic papers.




    Code-mixing is the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in speech.




    Wikipedia






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Bill Angove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    It has been called code-mixing in academic papers.




    Code-mixing is the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in speech.




    Wikipedia







    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Bill Angove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 15 hours ago









    jimm101

    5,37561736




    5,37561736






    New contributor




    Bill Angove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered 16 hours ago









    Bill Angove

    712




    712




    New contributor




    Bill Angove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    Bill Angove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    Bill Angove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.








    • 6




      I believe this refers to several languages being used by one speaker in their speech. It does not appear to cover the case where one speaker consistently uses one language and the other one consistently uses another language, while they both understand both languages.
      – GSerg
      12 hours ago






    • 1




      I believe GSerg is right. Code-switching and code-mixing are not always kept separate at all, but even when they are, they normally refer to the same speaker drawing on multiple languages, rather than to multiple speakers drawing from one language each. In database structure terms, code-switching/-mixing is a one-to-many (or many-to-one) relation, whereas this question is asking about one-to-one relations with unique foreign key constraints.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      11 hours ago






    • 1




      This answer would be even better if it linked to, or referenced, the DOI of one or more of the academic papers in which this term is used.
      – shoover
      11 hours ago










    • Did you mean to say 'code-switching'? That refers to a single person using multiple languages (that they know the other person understands. The OP is talking about when one person uses one language solely, and the other another one alone, but they both understand the other. In such a situation, code-switching may well occur but not necessarily.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago










    • code switching or mixing refers to a single-person thing. It does not involve two people and languages are codes, anyway. Code switching and mixing is intra-lingual not inter-lingual.
      – Lambie
      4 hours ago














    • 6




      I believe this refers to several languages being used by one speaker in their speech. It does not appear to cover the case where one speaker consistently uses one language and the other one consistently uses another language, while they both understand both languages.
      – GSerg
      12 hours ago






    • 1




      I believe GSerg is right. Code-switching and code-mixing are not always kept separate at all, but even when they are, they normally refer to the same speaker drawing on multiple languages, rather than to multiple speakers drawing from one language each. In database structure terms, code-switching/-mixing is a one-to-many (or many-to-one) relation, whereas this question is asking about one-to-one relations with unique foreign key constraints.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      11 hours ago






    • 1




      This answer would be even better if it linked to, or referenced, the DOI of one or more of the academic papers in which this term is used.
      – shoover
      11 hours ago










    • Did you mean to say 'code-switching'? That refers to a single person using multiple languages (that they know the other person understands. The OP is talking about when one person uses one language solely, and the other another one alone, but they both understand the other. In such a situation, code-switching may well occur but not necessarily.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago










    • code switching or mixing refers to a single-person thing. It does not involve two people and languages are codes, anyway. Code switching and mixing is intra-lingual not inter-lingual.
      – Lambie
      4 hours ago








    6




    6




    I believe this refers to several languages being used by one speaker in their speech. It does not appear to cover the case where one speaker consistently uses one language and the other one consistently uses another language, while they both understand both languages.
    – GSerg
    12 hours ago




    I believe this refers to several languages being used by one speaker in their speech. It does not appear to cover the case where one speaker consistently uses one language and the other one consistently uses another language, while they both understand both languages.
    – GSerg
    12 hours ago




    1




    1




    I believe GSerg is right. Code-switching and code-mixing are not always kept separate at all, but even when they are, they normally refer to the same speaker drawing on multiple languages, rather than to multiple speakers drawing from one language each. In database structure terms, code-switching/-mixing is a one-to-many (or many-to-one) relation, whereas this question is asking about one-to-one relations with unique foreign key constraints.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    11 hours ago




    I believe GSerg is right. Code-switching and code-mixing are not always kept separate at all, but even when they are, they normally refer to the same speaker drawing on multiple languages, rather than to multiple speakers drawing from one language each. In database structure terms, code-switching/-mixing is a one-to-many (or many-to-one) relation, whereas this question is asking about one-to-one relations with unique foreign key constraints.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    11 hours ago




    1




    1




    This answer would be even better if it linked to, or referenced, the DOI of one or more of the academic papers in which this term is used.
    – shoover
    11 hours ago




    This answer would be even better if it linked to, or referenced, the DOI of one or more of the academic papers in which this term is used.
    – shoover
    11 hours ago












    Did you mean to say 'code-switching'? That refers to a single person using multiple languages (that they know the other person understands. The OP is talking about when one person uses one language solely, and the other another one alone, but they both understand the other. In such a situation, code-switching may well occur but not necessarily.
    – Mitch
    7 hours ago




    Did you mean to say 'code-switching'? That refers to a single person using multiple languages (that they know the other person understands. The OP is talking about when one person uses one language solely, and the other another one alone, but they both understand the other. In such a situation, code-switching may well occur but not necessarily.
    – Mitch
    7 hours ago












    code switching or mixing refers to a single-person thing. It does not involve two people and languages are codes, anyway. Code switching and mixing is intra-lingual not inter-lingual.
    – Lambie
    4 hours ago




    code switching or mixing refers to a single-person thing. It does not involve two people and languages are codes, anyway. Code switching and mixing is intra-lingual not inter-lingual.
    – Lambie
    4 hours ago










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Bilingualism and multilingual come to mind.



    The Irish also have a bilingualist population. While I am American by birth, my family surname is that of one of Ulsters last remaining drudic septs. Many of my relatives who reside in Ireland are all bilingual and interchangeably speak Gaelic and British English. As a result of my wanting to keep tradition, I too speak/write/read both Gaelic and English. In additon to that I also know french, German, Spanish, Farsi, and Klingon. 😅






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Syntaxxx Err0r is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
      – Mark Beadles
      7 hours ago










    • You had me at the words but lost me with 'drudic'. If you took out all the personal references (but maybe left in what those personal information implies) and just say 'bilingual conversation', you just might have it.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Bilingualism and multilingual come to mind.



    The Irish also have a bilingualist population. While I am American by birth, my family surname is that of one of Ulsters last remaining drudic septs. Many of my relatives who reside in Ireland are all bilingual and interchangeably speak Gaelic and British English. As a result of my wanting to keep tradition, I too speak/write/read both Gaelic and English. In additon to that I also know french, German, Spanish, Farsi, and Klingon. 😅






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Syntaxxx Err0r is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
      – Mark Beadles
      7 hours ago










    • You had me at the words but lost me with 'drudic'. If you took out all the personal references (but maybe left in what those personal information implies) and just say 'bilingual conversation', you just might have it.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago













    up vote
    0
    down vote










    up vote
    0
    down vote









    Bilingualism and multilingual come to mind.



    The Irish also have a bilingualist population. While I am American by birth, my family surname is that of one of Ulsters last remaining drudic septs. Many of my relatives who reside in Ireland are all bilingual and interchangeably speak Gaelic and British English. As a result of my wanting to keep tradition, I too speak/write/read both Gaelic and English. In additon to that I also know french, German, Spanish, Farsi, and Klingon. 😅






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Syntaxxx Err0r is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    Bilingualism and multilingual come to mind.



    The Irish also have a bilingualist population. While I am American by birth, my family surname is that of one of Ulsters last remaining drudic septs. Many of my relatives who reside in Ireland are all bilingual and interchangeably speak Gaelic and British English. As a result of my wanting to keep tradition, I too speak/write/read both Gaelic and English. In additon to that I also know french, German, Spanish, Farsi, and Klingon. 😅







    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Syntaxxx Err0r is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer






    New contributor




    Syntaxxx Err0r is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered 10 hours ago









    Syntaxxx Err0r

    12




    12




    New contributor




    Syntaxxx Err0r is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    Syntaxxx Err0r is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    Syntaxxx Err0r is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.












    • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
      – Mark Beadles
      7 hours ago










    • You had me at the words but lost me with 'drudic'. If you took out all the personal references (but maybe left in what those personal information implies) and just say 'bilingual conversation', you just might have it.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago


















    • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
      – Mark Beadles
      7 hours ago










    • You had me at the words but lost me with 'drudic'. If you took out all the personal references (but maybe left in what those personal information implies) and just say 'bilingual conversation', you just might have it.
      – Mitch
      7 hours ago
















    This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
    – Mark Beadles
    7 hours ago




    This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
    – Mark Beadles
    7 hours ago












    You had me at the words but lost me with 'drudic'. If you took out all the personal references (but maybe left in what those personal information implies) and just say 'bilingual conversation', you just might have it.
    – Mitch
    7 hours ago




    You had me at the words but lost me with 'drudic'. If you took out all the personal references (but maybe left in what those personal information implies) and just say 'bilingual conversation', you just might have it.
    – Mitch
    7 hours ago










    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    There is a concept of diglossia.




    The use of two markedly different varieties of a language in different social situations, such as a formal variety at work and an informal variety at home. [American Heritage]




    Usually this term is used when the same people are speaking both languages (e.g. people who speak an official form of the language in formal occasions and a dialect the rest of the time; or else speak English at work and another language the rest of the time).



    By stretching it a little, we could also call this particular situation (where individuals speak a single language but understand two) as a case of diglossia?



    In this particular case there does not seem to be any high or low language, but simply two persons from different backgrounds speaking different languages (hence it is a situation of multiculturalism) but sufficiently familiar with the other language that they have a passive knowledge of it.



    What is interesting to guess, is how this situation might evolve in time: by one language supplanting the other? Or a fusion of the two, similar to what happened to Middle English? Or a third language (as English) taking over?






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      -1
      down vote













      There is a concept of diglossia.




      The use of two markedly different varieties of a language in different social situations, such as a formal variety at work and an informal variety at home. [American Heritage]




      Usually this term is used when the same people are speaking both languages (e.g. people who speak an official form of the language in formal occasions and a dialect the rest of the time; or else speak English at work and another language the rest of the time).



      By stretching it a little, we could also call this particular situation (where individuals speak a single language but understand two) as a case of diglossia?



      In this particular case there does not seem to be any high or low language, but simply two persons from different backgrounds speaking different languages (hence it is a situation of multiculturalism) but sufficiently familiar with the other language that they have a passive knowledge of it.



      What is interesting to guess, is how this situation might evolve in time: by one language supplanting the other? Or a fusion of the two, similar to what happened to Middle English? Or a third language (as English) taking over?






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        -1
        down vote










        up vote
        -1
        down vote









        There is a concept of diglossia.




        The use of two markedly different varieties of a language in different social situations, such as a formal variety at work and an informal variety at home. [American Heritage]




        Usually this term is used when the same people are speaking both languages (e.g. people who speak an official form of the language in formal occasions and a dialect the rest of the time; or else speak English at work and another language the rest of the time).



        By stretching it a little, we could also call this particular situation (where individuals speak a single language but understand two) as a case of diglossia?



        In this particular case there does not seem to be any high or low language, but simply two persons from different backgrounds speaking different languages (hence it is a situation of multiculturalism) but sufficiently familiar with the other language that they have a passive knowledge of it.



        What is interesting to guess, is how this situation might evolve in time: by one language supplanting the other? Or a fusion of the two, similar to what happened to Middle English? Or a third language (as English) taking over?






        share|improve this answer














        There is a concept of diglossia.




        The use of two markedly different varieties of a language in different social situations, such as a formal variety at work and an informal variety at home. [American Heritage]




        Usually this term is used when the same people are speaking both languages (e.g. people who speak an official form of the language in formal occasions and a dialect the rest of the time; or else speak English at work and another language the rest of the time).



        By stretching it a little, we could also call this particular situation (where individuals speak a single language but understand two) as a case of diglossia?



        In this particular case there does not seem to be any high or low language, but simply two persons from different backgrounds speaking different languages (hence it is a situation of multiculturalism) but sufficiently familiar with the other language that they have a passive knowledge of it.



        What is interesting to guess, is how this situation might evolve in time: by one language supplanting the other? Or a fusion of the two, similar to what happened to Middle English? Or a third language (as English) taking over?







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 5 hours ago

























        answered 5 hours ago









        fralau

        1,452214




        1,452214






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f474511%2fword-when-two-people-use-two-different-languages-in-a-conversation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            サソリ

            広島県道265号伴広島線

            Accessing regular linux commands in Huawei's Dopra Linux