Diatopic Patterning of Croatian Varieties in the Adriatic Region

Abstract

The calculation of aggregate linguistic distances can compensate for some of the drawbacks inherent to the isogloss bundling method used in traditional dialectology to identify dialect areas. Synchronic aggregate analysis can also point out differences with respect to a diachronically based classification of dialects. In this study the Levenshtein algorithm is applied for the first time to obtain an aggregate analysis of the linguistic distances among 88 diatopic varieties of Croatian spoken along the Eastern Adriatic coast and in the Italian province of Molise. We also measured lexical differences among these varieties, which are traditionally grouped into Čakavian, Štokavian, and transitional Čakavian-Štokavian varieties. The lexical and pronunciational distances are subsequently projected onto multidimensional cartographic representations. Both kinds of analyses confirmed that linguistic discontinuity is characteristic of the whole region, and that discontinuities are more pronounced in the northern Adriatic area than in the south. We also show that the geographic lines are in many cases the most decisive factor contributing to linguistic cohesion, and that the internal heterogeneity within Čakavian is often greater than the differences between Čakavian and Štokavian varieties. This holds both for pronunciation and lexicon. 2 IntroductionOne of the most popular methods applied in traditional geolinguistics (dialectology) is the method of isoglosses, in which areas characterized by different realizations of a single feature are separated by a line -an isogloss. Bundles of such lines were traditionally considered the most important criterion for the division of geolinguistic space into linguistic areas. Despite the tendency to rely on the application of this method in traditional dialectology, even there it has long been recognized that isoglosses do not determine dialectal areas unambiguously because they rarely coincide completely. The isogloss method needs additional assumptions to account for transitional zones and/or dialect continua, even though these are widely recognized to be as common as tightlyknit and readily definable linguistic areas (Chambers & Trudgill, 1998:97).Brozović, who is aware of the problem, argues that in the case of Croatian, because of specific features of the dialectological make-up of this language, the use of traditional isogloss method is nevertheless sometimes justified: "In our linguistic territory we often find the kind of clear-cut dialectal boundaries that older dialectologists could only dream of; these boundaries occur with intense, clear and dense bundles of isoglosses, whereas it has long been clear to dialectologists that such 'ideal' dialectal boundaries are not a common occurrence in language. " (1970:9) 1 . It is our opinion, however, that the division of the Croatian language area into dialect groups is still problematic. This is because although clear-cut dialectal boundaries might be found often in Croatia, they are by no means the rule as Brozović (1970...

A Central Asian Language Survey

“…It would be vain to try to establish, on the basis of a Swadesh list of 176 terms (24 words were excludedsee Supplementary Materials, Tab S1), the regular connections between languages of the same family. In this section, our purpose is to highlight the phonetical similarity and differences of different Central Asian varieties to suggest that their diversity falls in a range of diversity comparable to the European dialects we have studied so far (Gooskens and Heeringa 2004;Nerbonne and Siedle 2005;Wieling et al 2007;Prokić et al 2009;Wieling et al , 2013;Šimičić et al 2013;Montemagni et al 2013). As a consequence the computational methods we used to measure the linguistic diversity, originally designed to analyze dialect diversity in Europe, can be regarded as appropriate tools for the task at hand.…”