Latgalistikys kongresu materiali, III. 2011. - Latvijas Universitāte

Russian. Only standard Latvian as a language of informal communication,
as in the western part of the region, is a by far less common situation,
which statistically has to be considered separately (see map 5 below for a
superposition of sociolinguistic language borders and their classification).
A further interpretation of the data can be performed calculating the
mean distance between every area and the bordering ones (table 3). In this
way, we can highlight areas of discontinuity, or of sociolinguistic transition
in comparison to others in which sociolinguistic homogeneity is the
rule. It must be noted that the real sociolinguistic borders are those shown
in map 1. Here a difference of patterns between two adjacent areas does
not directly imply the presence of a border, but rather illustrates the position
of the territory with regard to the surrounding areas. For example,
Demene (84) and Kalkūne (85) have very similar sociolinguistic features
(no border between the areas has been drawn in map 1), but in map 3 Demene
has a different pattern than Kalkūne because of its border with Ilūkste
(90). These facts can be shown clearly when superposing map 1 and 2
into map 3.
The interesting aspect of map 3 is that it highlights the distance
among sociolinguistic situations as it could be perceived from each individual
area. Greenish colours indicate the perception of inhabitants to live
in a more or less homogenous (socio)linguistic environment, while orange
colours show that the inhabitants in these areas probably feel that their
situation is quite peculiar. It must be noted that at the border of the maps
(the international borders in the east and south and the regional borders in
the west) the sociolinguistic distance is not calculated: this means that
these territories could result in the map more homogeneous of what they
are in reality. For instance, people from Zilupe could well feel that their
neighbours speak the same languages as themselves in the same situations,
but only if they look west, into the direction of Latvia. Of course, given the
state border with Russia, the linguistic composition towards the East is
likely to be perceived as considerably different.
Finally, the superposition of the sociolinguistic borders to the map
representing the hierarchical classification of the sociolinguistic situation
shows the continuity of the sociolinguistic composition of Eastern Latvia.
Patterns illustrate possible borders which would otherwise be invisible in
the “free corridors” created by the border lines. On the other hand, the
thickness graduation of the borderlines softens the rigidity of the contrast
between two different patterns.
84