Geolinguistic problems:

mapping lexical variants and suspicious responses

Abstract

This article systematically and precisely addresses the methodological challenges faced in geolinguistic studies, focusing on linguistic mapping and the validation of lexical variants collected in situ. Based on the observation that certain linguistic atlases present responses that do not effectively correspond to actual linguistic variants in use, we propose four core criteria to ensure greater rigor in the selection and representation of such variants: (i) lexical frequency; (ii) stability of the linguistic sign and data triangulation; (iii) communicative validation (members checking); and (iv) review by key informants (external validation). The article discusses the relevance of usage frequency as an indicator to distinguish between more frequent and less frequent lexical variants, while also warning about the limitations of this metric when used in isolation. The triangulation process is carried out through consultation of dictionaries and previously published linguistic atlases, ensuring the semantic and referential verification of collected items. Communicative validation recognizes the active participation of informants as an integral part of the data collection process, strengthening the reliability of the research results. Lastly, external validation is presented as a complex, yet feasible instance, crucial for consolidating the scientific credibility of linguistic atlases. The adoption of these criteria supports the creation of linguistic maps that are more faithful to dialectological reality, avoiding the inclusion of suspicious or non-representative responses. However, we emphasize that these four criteria do not form a closed set, allowing for the inclusion of new criteria or the reformulation of those already established.