Latgalistikys kongresu materiali, III. 2011. - Latvijas Universitāte

Dialectometry is a well-known branch of linguistics that measures
the interlinguistic distances in a formal and quantitative way on a diatopic
basis, according to specific criteria (see Goebl 1982). In particular, it allows
us to compare each point of the analysis (corresponding to a geographic
point) with each point of the considered area, or compare any
point to all others at the same time by means of a GIS elaboration. In this
way, the cartographic elaboration of the results — calculated by dialectometric
computations — makes the quantified linguistic borders evident on
the maps, as well as areas of contrast, of linguistic change and of similar
aspects.
Nevertheless it is very easy to draw a correspondence between geographically
oriented dialectological and sociolinguistic analysis, since —
as was explained above — they are two parallel and mirror-like branches
of linguistics: in traditional dialectometry, the original data (which is usually
deduced from previous works not conceived in order to support such
mathematical treatment) is textual and must be first formalised and transformed
into figures (see Goebl 1982). This process requires a strong aid of
the linguist through methodological implications, which may utterly vary
from one analysis to another. For example, let us suppose analysing the
possible modern output of Latin /K/ (+/A/) 21 within the Romance languages
in a specific area displaying the results [k], [c] and [ʧ] (or [ʃ] as later output).
In a first classification we could consider each of the three results as
different from the others (A ≠ B ≠ C); in this way we could create three
taxa, or categories, and set the three points in the same distance
from each other (thus, in reality, conferring them three different entities on
the map, each of them distinguished by a different colour or pattern not to
scale). A historical linguist’s point of view, however, may differ from this
division of the results: s/he would classify [c], [ʧ] (and [ʃ]) together as
variants which, in comparison to the orginal Latin have undergone palatalisation,
and would keep [k] on one side. Thereby, only two entities
would be created — corresponding to two colours — by the scheme
A ≠ (B = C). On the other hand, a merely synchronic phonetic view could,
instead, separate the occlusive consonants, thereby creating two entities
different from each other according to the scheme (A = B) ≠ C. Alternatively,
we could use these data as patterns within different scales of values
which fix the distances among these points of articulation: for example a
21 Very well-known in Romanistic, this issue (the velar voiceless stop preceding the
central unrounded low vowel) has quite a lot of modern outputs in the whole Romance
area.
73