Latgalistikys kongresu materiali, III. 2011. - Latvijas Universitāte

distance 1 between [k] and [c] (only the place of articulation differs) would
be distinguished from a distance 2 between [k] and [ʧ] (both place and
manner of articulation are different) and so on.
Instead, a sociodialectometric analysis considers data which were
formalized previously, since results of (quantitative) surveys of sociology
of language are numerical, and, in many cases, have already been statistically
elaborated before their publication. The following diagramme
(Dell’Aquila, Iannàccaro 2010.) shows parallelisms and differences between
classical dialectometry and the proposed sociodialectometry:
CLASSICAL
LINGUISTIC
ATLAS
[ALF-AIS]
Dialectological
data
Sociolinguistic
data
(DIVULGATIVE)
LANGUAGE
DISTRIBUTION
MAP
THIRD GENERATION
LINGUISTIC
ATLAS
[ALE-ALIR]
Classical
dialectological
analysis
Data
formalization
Data
formalization
Sociolinguistic
analysis
SOCIOLINGUISTIC
THEMATIC
MAP
DIALECTOMETRIC
MAP
[ALD analysis map]
Dialectometric
analysis
Sociodialectometric
analysis
SOCIO-
DIALECTOMETRIC
MAP
74
Figure 2:
Parallel dialectological and sociolinguistic developments of geographical analysis
2. For the present analysis we will use the results of 16 questions regarding
language use in Latgale. Namely, they regard the languages or
dialects spoken by the respondents’ with their mothers, fathers, siblings,
partners, sons and daughters, older relatives, neighbours, small children,
priests, doctors, shop-keepers, schoolmates and colleagues and civil servants
in the local administrations; and the languages which the interviewees
used in writing for personal or for professional reasons and in which