Method of the Dialect History and the Historical Sociolinguistics in the Examination of the Historical Texts

Enikő Gréczi-Zsoldos Institute of Hungarian Literature and Language [email protected]

Keywords: linguistics, history of language, dialect history, historical sociolinguistics, reconstruction

The database for the socio-historical linguistics will include patterns of variation in speech and writing in contemporary societies, and written texts of all kinds from earlier periods, including reports by historians and grammarians. The methodological question is how to extract the social informations from the sources. Sociohistorical linguistics therefore has certain concerns in common with the traditional philological method of textual interpretation. What needed a way of combining the rich philological tradition with the recent work on quantitative methods, discourse analysis, literacy as well as with historical phonol- ogy, syntax, semantics and pragmatics.1 What is recoverable depends on the richness of the textual corpus, with represents the major source of evidence be- fore the period when tape recordings become available. There is a great need for re-examining the textual tradition to the location of the texts in their socio- historical context, i. e. where they fit into the registers available at the time. Historical dialectology might be defined as the study of diachronic, di- atopic and social variation in the historical records of languages. Insofar as it is historical it deals with time: the varieties spoken at particular points in history and the transitions between these points. Insofar as it is a study of dialects, it deals with variation across geographical and social space, broadly understood. The granularity with which we may observe the variants themselves, as well as their distribution across these key dimensions, is constrained by the quality, quantity and dispersion of the data itself. The English termin: dialect means not just the geographical variations of language, but also the social variations and the standard of language, too.

1 SÁROSI Zsófia, „Történeti szociolingvisztika – nyelvtörténet más megközelítésben”, Magyar Nyelv, 99(2003) 4. sz. 434−447., 435–436.

— 161 — University of Miskolc Faculty of Arts – Research Almanac Mihály Hajdú isolates the terminology: historical dialect research and dialect history.2 The historical dialect research examines a single sub-area through the Hungarian dialect as a whole.3 The method of the dialect history examines the history of a well-defined dialect region.4 My examination is the history of the language of the 17th century in Nógrád county based on that methodology.5 In 1957, the first volume of studies was published in Hungarian language science, which seeks to systematicise the history of the Hungarian dialects. Lo- ránd Benkő’s summary of his work have been a guide to Hungarian dialect history research for decades.6 The methodological difficulty of the reconstruction of the history of dialects is the head-to-hand problem. Often, the dictater of the text and the notation of the text are not same. We try to infer the former verba- lity from the written texts: how spoke the people once. The possibility of reconstruction within a sociolinguistic theory depends on the recovery of past events, as all form of historical enquiry do. In other words, we attempt to reconstruct information that is not directly available or has been lost; in doing so, we are in a sense ‘creating history’. The primary evidence for the past is the same, whether the historical linguist regards himself as sociolinguist or not; namely, the texts which survive. The special problem for the sociolinguist, however, is that of interpreting, or taking into account context in a systematic way. We can examine first some of the more purely particle problems in dealing with historical data. The fundamental methodological fact that historical linguists have to face is that they have no control over their data. His view is that the job of the historical linguist is to make the best of bad data – ‘bad’ in the sense that it may be corrupted or many times removed from the actual productions of native speakers. It may happen that the copyist is not a native speaker of the va- riety or the language of the text he is copying. In this case, the text could not be taken as representative of the written language of any speaker or community. There are obvious connections between spoken and written language. The examining of the language use in 17th century based on archival re- sources from 1600−1699 in Nógrád county of Hungary. I wonder whether the former speech can be reconstructed from the written texts and what language layers of the former language use can be unstitched from the archival sources.

2 HAJDÚ Mihály, „Adatok a XVII. század ö-zéséhez”, Magyar Nyelv 83(1987) 443−447. 3 E.g. BÁRCZI Géza, Régi magyar nyelvjárások, Különlenyomat a Magyar Népkutatás kézikönyvéből, (Budapest: Néptudományi Intézet, 1947); PAPP László, Nyelvjárástörténet és nyelvi statisztika, (Bu- dapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963) 4 E.g. ABAFFY Erzsébet, Sopron megye nyelve a XVI. században, (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1965) 5 GRÉCZI-ZSOLDOS Enikő, Nógrád vármegye nyelve a XVII. században, Adatok, források és tanulmá- nyok a Nógrád Megyei Levéltárból 52, (Salgótarján: Nógrád Megyei Levéltár, 2007) 6 BENKŐ Loránd, Magyar nyelvjárástörténet, (Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1957)

— 162 — Method of the Dialect History and the Historical Sociolinguistics This study required the methodological complexity outlined above. Its discipli- nary pillars: the dialect history, the historical sociolinguistics, the language geography and the paleography. The localization is usually an advantage in the linguistic research. If the language relic contains the location of the note, it is highly likely appears the local dialect. However, in some cases, localization is misleading, e. g. when we want to conclude to the mother tongue or dialect of the writer because the birthplace of the document is not always the same as the letter’s native language or dialect. It is uncertain because the linguistic dominance of the ,,head” (who dictates the text) may be presents in the language of the document. On the other side, the scriveners and the students and the writers who can writes in the earlier centuries (the ,,deáks”) after their studies may not have stayed at their birthplace, but they moved to a new workplace, often to another dialect region. The apparatus and the person who gives them a job may be affected the language status of the texts. We find that the writers of the texts sometimes in- corporate allogeneic language elements into the written language of a dialect area. The „deáks”, the scriveners were the most educated persons in the contemporary society. They are the ones who can read and write, especially their job was to write letters and the documents in the court. Therefore in this social class starts the aspiration for the linguistic unification. So the texts written by the educated scriveners often was not in dialect form. Often the writers of the official documents orient to a written language norm avoiding the dialects. The gradiation of this depends on the literacy, erudition even the social modality of the text writers. But because in this century the spoken language was the dialect form penetrate through the written texts. Can not be all documents to be seen as the sources of the dialect history. The dialect forms of the present or recent past can be help the regional delimitation of the consequence which can be filtered from the material of the former archival documents. An important element of the methodology is the so- called ascending method. Its main point is the comparison of the spoken and written texts in the same region: to compare the currently talking dialect with a reconstructed dialect and to make a comparison between standard and the language versions. It is difficult to determine which are the dialectal language forms in the history of a language. It is also the question: which area or part of the language community can be linked this forms, this language versions; when start the changes and how long they maintain their potency. László Papp un- derlines that the synchronous state of a linguistic period in its geographical di- versity can be reconstructed after a thorough detection, moreover it may be

— 163 — University of Miskolc Faculty of Arts – Research Almanac possible to explore the history of the dialect of a region based on the representative studies.7 The knowledge of the historical-social context in power is a part of a complex historical study. The researchers of the language can’t miss the knowledge of the contemporary society, economic and settlement history, the method of the language geography, to follow the migrations, to explore the historical background, to construe the relationship between the landscape and the people li- ving in it. Loránd Benkő notes in his paper that the life of the dialects is a com- plicated process, not easy to squeeze into the methodological schemes.8 In the research of the language use of Nógrád county in the 17th century alongside the complex methodological framework has an important role the method of the language geography, too. This method has connection with the disciplines examining the socio-cultural background as well as the horizontal examination of the language. Heinrich Löffler defines the language as a social formation. He emphasizes in his paper that the mutually compatible ingredients and active ingredients in a culture landscape are the language, the society and the geography.9 The linguistic space and linguistic boundaries in the researches of Maurer and Wrede are given not only linguistic-geographically but also sociological meaning. From the history researches of the German and French language (particularly in the works of G. Wenker and J. Gillièron) as well as from the works of the represent- tatives of the Italian neolinguistics (the language geographic by M. Bartoli and G. I. Ascoli) takes derive to the linguistic sociology research trend. Goossens promotes the link between linguistic geography and sociolinguistics as a new method. Among the interpretive methods there are the extra- and the intralingual investigation. The intralingual investigation does not provide sufficient data for the researchers of the language changes. But the extralingual investigation examines the external factors of the language. This method takes into account the social factors in the linguistic-social environment. Suzanne Romaine in her papers from the 1980th years summarizes the way of the linguistic reconstruction, the goals and the method of the

7 Papp László, XVI. század végi nyelvjárásaink tanulmányozása, Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 19. (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1959) 8 BENKŐ Loránd, „Új módszerbeli lehetőségek a magyar nyelvjárástörténeti vizsgálatokban”, Magyar Nyelv, 57(1961) 4. sz. 401–413., 406. 9 Heinrich LÖFFLER, „Sprache und Gesellschaft in der Geschichte der vorstrukturalistischen Sprach- wissenschaft”, in Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik, hrsg. Ulrich AMMON and Norbert DITTMAR and Klaus G. MATTHEIER, (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter Verlag, 1988) 379–389., 387.

— 164 — Method of the Dialect History and the Historical Sociolinguistics sociolinguistics.10 She descripes: „sociolinguistics must look to relations of pro- duction in society in order to understand the relationship between language and society, then sociolinguitics must be a historical discipline”.11 In her opin- ion ‘doing socio-historical linguistics’ i. e. using the methodology to investigate prior stages of language to shed light on the process of change…”12 Sociolinguis- tics should itself be an integrative mode of description. The subject matter of linguistics should not be confined to the study of the conceptual function of language, but should also include its social function or communicative use. My analysis of the records from the 17th century combine the qualitative and the quantitative methods. The results from the data resume statistical ta- bles. During the examination I do phoneme and morpheme statistics, so come to be data base of the language from the early period. I analyzed the article of Hungarian language ‘a, az’ based on the documents from the 17th century. After the statistical exam manifested a progress in this subsystem of the language. I examined by number 1070 articles. In the first half of the century exclusive is the variant ‘az’ in front of vowel and consonant, too. The article type of today’s Hungarian language appeared in the second half of the 17th century. The use is in emerging yet in this century (from the all articles only 12% such version). In the Klaus Mattheier’s paper find we the description of the socio-communicative process: ,,…durch soziokommunikative Steurung und durch inten- zionale Steurung bedingten Sprachveränderungshandlungen… Diese beide Prozesstypen sind in besonders enger Weise eingebunden in die Strukturen und Veränderungen der Sprachgemeinschaften.”13 […through socio-communicative control and through intenzional control is a connection with the language changes. This both process types show particularly a tightly bound with the structures and the changes of the language community.] This is the theory of innovation: that unites the socio-communicative process with the intentional intervention. This two process types result the changes of the language. The actuation, transition and embedding of change are central questions within the study of language change and they have been treated as the three central problems. The actuation problem is concerned with an explanation of what it is that actually triggers language change. The question is: how do changes begin? The transition problem is concerned with the factors that are responsible for the

10 Suzanne ROMAINE, Socio-historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Suzanne ROMAINE, „Historical Sociolinguistics: Problems and Methodo- logy”, in Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik, hrsg. Ulrich AMMON and Norbert DITTMAR and Klaus G. MATTHEIER, (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter Verlag, 1988) 1452−1469. 11 ROMAINE, Historical Sociolinguistics, op.cit., 1453. 12 ROMAINE, Historical Sociolinguistics, op.cit., 1453. 13 Klaus J. MATTHEIER, „Das Verhältnis von sozialem und sprachlichem Wandel”, 1430–1452., 1445.

— 165 — University of Miskolc Faculty of Arts – Research Almanac spread of linguistic change within a speech community. The question is: how does change spread within a speech community? The 3rd problem is the embedding problem: this is concerned with the localization of change with respect to the linguistic and social settings in which this change is taking place. The question is: how is the change embedded in the surrounding linguistic and social system? My linguistic investigation based on the several documents: writings of court cases, confesses, testimonies, juristical documents, writings written by lawyer, property letters, real estate documents, debentures, official and privat letters, statements of adoption, testaments, border disputes etc. I would like to present some language occurrence to illustrate the method of investigation. I’m trying to highlight that what opportunity has a researcher of the historical linguistics to conclude to the speech from the written texts of the earlier period of language. For the researcher there are few possibilities for the reconstruction of the pronunciation and the vocalization. The ortography in the earlier centuries is inconsecutive. But the manuscript of the writers in the 17th century applied the precept of the vocalization, so the spelling can help for the researcher to reconstruct the language forms in the onetime speech. In this period of the ortography seem particular diacritical marks over the scripts what refer to the speech, for example over the ‘a’ and ‘e’: signs ‘á’, ‘é’. The mark ‘á’ can refer to the labialization, the sign ‘é’ to the more closed vowel. Some scribes thought important to make a difference between opened and closed vowel and between the labial and the illabial vowels.

The data for the closed ë:

1653. a debenture from the city Szécsény: mégh neuezet ‘named’, mégh irt ‘written’; 1670. a lawsuit from the city Kékkő−Kékkőalja: vétt volna ‘would have bought’, Nemzetés ‘noble’; 1685. a protocol from the city of Gács: féllűl ‘over’.14

The data for the illabial ȧ:

1616. a quittance from the city Fülek: Buzakát ‘wheat’;

14 The place of the sources: National Archive of Hungary (hereinafter: MNL) Archive of Nógrád County (hereinafter: NML) Balassagyarmat, XIV. 3. D. 11. d.; MNL NML Salgótarján, IV. 1. o/bb Inquisitiones. fasc. 1. Nr. 7.; MNL NML IV. 1. a/4. Protocollum Comitatus Neogradiensis 1683−1689. 1685. február 21. 69−71. p.

— 166 — Method of the Dialect History and the Historical Sociolinguistics 1648. a debenture from the city Szécsény: áz Nadásj ‘(house) from Nádas’, áz ‘the’, ßábád ‘free’, málmaiual ‘with his mills’, akárnák ‘they would like’, alkálmátlánb ‘more unsuitable’; 1669. a border dispute from the village Ipolyszele: Attyávál ‘with his father’, áltál ‘by’, hátár ‘border’; 1692. paper of duty from the city Balassagyarmat: Bálássa Gyarmáth.15

The both specially phoneme (the closed ‘ë’ and the illabial ‘ȧ’) used by the speakers of the dialect region ‘Palóc’ in the north of Hungary. The examined documents come from this region (Nógrád county is the part of the Palóc region). We can deduce from this that the „hands” or the „heads” of these texts spoke the Palóc dialect. It is typical of the morphology of this dialect version: the suffix ‘-val, -vel’ (‘with’) linked to the base as unassimilated.16 This language occurrence appears in the texts from the 17th century in this dialect area:

1633−1634. a border dispute from the village Parlagos: Gyürky István Uramval Eskütvel ‘with juryman lord István Gyürky’; 1663. declaration of a loan from the city Gyarmat: Felesegemvel ‘with my wife’; 1672. Dobrocs−Vámosfalva, határvita: az mostoha Anyamval ‘with my step- mother’.

The confesses and the privat letters are the best sources to reconstruct the earlier spoken language. The writers of the confesses noted faithful the heard speech in the court, so in the written texts appear language form from the spoken language, for example the profanities, the swears. The privat letters often written by noble characterized with little educate, so in this letter’s texts can be found dialectal forms. The earlier reality can be reconstruct just by the remained documents, consequently the earlier reality is defective. The knowledge about a language of the earlier periods is insufficient, too. The researchers try to replace the cha- racteristics and to draw the structure of a language with the appropriate method.

15 MNL NML IV. 1. b. Fülek, 21 April 1616.; MNL NML XIII. 1. 1648/1. Szécsény, 9 June 1648. MNL NML IV. 1. o/bb Inquisitiones. fasc. 1. Nr. 5. 16 Ld. KÁLMÁN Béla, Nyelvjárásaink, (Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1966); IMRE Samu, A mai magyar nyelvjárások rendszere, (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971); Magyar dialektológia, szerk. KISS Jenő, (Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2001)

— 167 — University of Miskolc Faculty of Arts – Research Almanac My most important publications on this topic:

GRÉCZI-ZSOLDOS Enikő, Nógrád vármegye nyelve a XVII. században, Adatok, források és tanulmányok a Nógrád Megyei Levéltárból 52, (Salgótarján: Nógrád Megyei Levéltár, 2007)

GRÉCZI-ZSOLDOS Enikő, „Történeti dialektológiai vizsgálatok XVII. századi palóc nyelvemlékekben”, in V. Dialektológiai Szimpozion, szerk. GUTTMANN Miklós és MOLNÁR Zoltán, A Berzsenyi Dániel Ta- nárképző Főiskola Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszékének Kiadványai 8. (Szombathely: Berzsenyi Dániel Tanárképző Főiskola Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszéke, 2007) 86–90.

GRÉCZI-ZSOLDOS Enikő, „A történeti szociolingvisztikáról”, in Elmélet és empíria a szociolingviszt- ikában: Válogatás a 17. Élőnyelvi Konferencia – Szeged, 2012. augusztus 30.–szeptember 1. – előadásaiból, szerk. KONTRA Miklós és NÉMETH Miklós és SINKOVICS Balázs, (Budapest: Gondolat Ki- adó, 2013) 173–187.

GRÉCZI-ZSOLDOS Enikő, „17. századi szövegek vizsgálatának interdiszciplináris lehetőségei”, in Tér, idő, társadalom és kultúra metszéspontjai a magyar nyelvben: A 7. Nemzetközi Hungarológiai Kon- gresszus két szimpóziumának előadásai, szerk. FAZAKAS Emese és JUHÁSZ Dezső és T. SZABÓ Csilla és TERBE Erika és ZSEMLYEI Borbála, (Budapest és Kolozsvár: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem és Babeş-Bolyai Tudományegyetem, 2014) 36–44.

GRÉCZI-ZSOLDOS Enikő, „17. századi határviták nyelvjárástörténeti és történeti szociolingvisztikai vizsgálata”, in A nyelvtörténeti kutatások újabb eredményei 10., szerk. FORGÁCS Tamás és NÉMETH Miklós és SINKOVICS Balázs, (Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszék, 2019) 133−140.

— 168 —