Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Humanities
THESES OF THE Ph. D. DISSERTATION
Andrea Csíkány
Lexicological analysis of Palóc dialects
Doctoral School of Linguistics Doctoral programme of Hungarian Linguistics
Supervisor: Dr. Kiss Jenő MHAS., professor
Budapest 2010
1. Introduction 1.1. The object of the research My dissertation focuses on the research of the Middle-Palóc dialects in Slovakia both from a synchronic and diachronic perspective. The topic indicated in the title is an apple in my eye mainly because I am an Hungarian palóc in Slovakia. Moreover, I have been glad to witness a rapid growth in the research of Hungarian dialects in Slovakia over the recent years. This fact added on the actuality of my dissertation. The above-mentioned boom can mainly be attributed to the creative capability and organization skills of Sándor Anna, who, as the head of Faculty of Hungarian Studies on the Konstantin University in Nitra, surrounded herself with young dialectologists (Menyhárt József, Presinszky Károly). Cs. Nagy Lajos also did some research at Medvesalja while being a guest lecturer in Nitra. The research of my dissertation has been closely connected with The New Hungarian Dialectical Atlas, which covers the whole area of Hungarian-speaking community. Within the confines of this gathering, I collected information on research areas (Bolyk MNyA Cs/17, Csáb MNyA Cs/16, Gice MNyA Cs/20, Magyarhegymeg MNyA Cs/18, Zsip MNyA Cs/19, and Ludányhalászi H4 in Hungary) for The new Atlas using the questionnaire method. (The sound-recording is available in the Archives of Geolinguistic Research team of Hungarian Academy of Sciences - Eötvös Loránd University.) The topic of my dissertation is a lexicological analysis of the Middle-Palóc dialect. People living here speak Palóc dialect, however, this dialect is being influenced by Slovak (as the official language of the state) and the Hungarian standard language. In addition, the idea of preserving these findings was also a driving force because the language of research areas is undergoing changes. The population is growing older, while the number of Hungarianspeaking people is decreasing.
1.2. The tasks, aim and hypotheses of the research In my discourse I was confronted with two tasks. Firstly, I had to carry on the synchronic gathering on the pre-set research areas by the help of tools suitable for voicerecording. This method enabled me to record the answers of datatransmitters directly on the spot. The corpus gathered in this way corresponds with the strict requirements of simultaneity for the elapsed time between the first and last gathering is only 3 years (January 2003 – May 2006). This research constitutes a part in the synchronic description. On the other hand, there was a need to compare the data gathered for The Old Atlas (Time of gathering: 1953-1958)
2
with the newly collected ones. It is obvious that the gathering of data, however, being so time and energy-consuming, makes up a very important factor of the research. It can also be assumed that over the course of fifty years there have been changes within those parts of the dialects, which are available and recognizable based on follow-up study of The old Atlas. As I have already mentioned, the aim of my thesis is to compare the results of my own gathering with the former results for the A magyar nyelvjárások atlasza, (MNyA), (The Old Atlas) both synchronically and diachronically. The synchronic research was based on the dialectical data collected and recorded on the spot by the questionnaire method in the period from 2003 to 2006. From the diachronic point of view it is confrontation analysis between the newly-collected data and those of A magyar nyelvjárások atlasza. My research follows the current trends of Hungarian dialectology because it uses follow-up studies. This method has two advantages – on one side, it enables us to collect fresh data thus depicting the state of current dialects. On the other hand, this method provides facilities for the contrastive analysis (mainly with the data of nagyatlasz) which serves for the reliable documentation of changes within the taxonomy of dialects. Hypotheses: 1. The language of the Middle-Palóc speakers is being influenced by Slovak (as the official language of the state) and the Hungarian standard language, 2. The attitude of datatransmitters towards their own dialect and Hungarian has undergone changes over the recent years, 3. there is a change in speakers’ dialect when compared to the gatherings of 50s – this change can be recorded mainly in vocabulary because there are tools and work processes which have become obsolete in the meantime, 4. We can recognize certain changes in comparison with older data in morphological and phonological features with the young and the middle-aged (they are influenced by the standard language), 5. The language of the oldest generation is more archaic, middle-aged people can be familiar with the dialectisms, there is a shift towards the standard language in the speech of the young, dialectical words are becoming more and more extinct.
1.3. The structure of dissertation My dissertation is comprised of 8 closely connected parts. Part 1 is introductory in which the goals ypotheses are summarized. Part 2 deals with the language usage in Slovakia from the perspective of bilingualism and diglossia. The attitude of speakers towards their
3
dialect and a mental lexicon are also observed in this section. Part 3 depicts the hardness and circumstances of the data-gathering process, while Part 4 presents the characteristic features of research area. This section is followed by Part 5, which gives exact characterization of morphological and phonological phenomena of Palóc dialect by means of synchronical approach. On the contrary, Part 6 uses the diachronical method for the analysis of given dialectical phenomena. This is a real-time research method which focuses on: 1. the true dialectical words, 2. changes in vocabulary of dialectical words, 3. changes which occured on the level of lexemes and their variants, changes in A magyar nyelvjárások atlasza, 4. changes in the meaning of lexemes, 5. and finally, the distribution of the designation system. Part 7 summarizes the results of the research, while Part 8 lists the references.
2. Methods of the dissertation, the research and datatransmitters I prepared my Ph. D. dissertation on the basis of the principles of scientific research. This meant that I used different kinds of gathering methods and numerous number of references. Furthermore, my gathering was extended to such details as the historical, geographical, etnographical and onomaestic aspects of the research area. These additional information were included in thesis only to a slight extent thanks to the limited space. Gathering started in February 2003, when I visited several Middle-Palóc villages to decide on the location of possible observational points. Relatives, acquaintances, mayors and ministers were asked to talk about the lives of inhabitants. As a result, the system of observational points was brought to life. The former Middle-Palóc research areas were listed: Bolyk, Magyarhegymeg, Zsip. Western-Palóc border: Csáb, Eastern-Palóc border: Gice and Ludányhalászi from Hungary. A test gathering was launched in 2003 (Bolyk) where the results and experiences proved that the gathering methods of Kálmán Béla and Imre Samu from the 50s are still applicable today. Criteria for the designating of new Middle-Palóc observational points were as follows: approximately the same distance from each other, same distribution of population, age, gender and education. I strive to find villages where the inhabitants speak Hungarian. It was quite hard because villages in the region of Felvidék are becoming bilingual because of the impact of Slovak language. Having taken these facts into consideration, the newly formed observational points were: 3 cities: Losonc, Fülek, Rimaszombat, 7 new villages: Bussa, Vilke, Ragyolc, Síd, Medveshidegkút, Gesztete, Várgede. (Cs. Nagy Lajos was collecting data in Medveshidegkút (1993–1994)). So the number of observational points is 16.
4
In the course of gathering process all of the MNyA questions were asked (1162 questions altogether) on every observational point. There were 20 questions marked with letter ’A’ from the questionnaire Palóc kutatás (Balogh Lajos – Pelle Béláné 1972. Palóc kutatás. Kérdőív a palóc nyelvjárási sajátságok felkutatásához. In: Módszertani Közlemények, XII., Eger.). Besides these sources I made use of Questionnaire, which is kept in the Institution of Linguistics. Professor Balogh Lajos helped me in obtaining original pictures and drawings from MNyA. We also made text-recordings, which include the Palóc traditions. The gathering was carried out in the period of 2003 – 2006 with the assistance of wellqualified partners. Selection of datatransmitters is a very important task, however, a very tough task. They were selected based on sociolinguistic requirements(gender, age, education) to successfully reflect the language usage of the village. (comp. Balogh Lajos 1990. A táji nyelvváltozatok kutatása. In: Élőnyelvi tanulmányok. Balogh Lajos – Kontra Miklós (szerk.), 1988. október 5-6. előadás-sorozat MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézete, Budapest, MTA, 84–88.). This could have meant that each village had 36 datatransmitters. That would be the ideal case, however, there are villages where no person with higher education can be found. So the number of the datatransmitters is 540. We carried out the data gathering process by systematic sampling and personal interviews (clearly stated interrogative sentences). This method is suitable for gathering information on dialectical variants of lexical-like words. Informants were also asked to complete sentences. In this case we awaited answers in a defined grammatical structure. Our team also practised method of asking by pointing at the object in question. When we sought designations of local objects, pictures and drawings were used as well. We had to convince the datatransmitters that the language used by them is appropriate. It was a big deal of challenge for us. The processing of data took 2 years (2007 – 2009). I processed every questionnaire and separated the data based on the observational points and datatransmitters. These findings were then further processed into a single document. It was followed by the systematization process that lasted from August 2009 to March 2010. My corpus includes approximately 600 000 data. This is so huge that it would be impossible to present it in its entirety. So I concentrated on 6 observational points from MNyA. It enabled me to look at the features in a more exhaustive way both synchronically and diachronically.
5
3. Results The hypotheses of the dissertation were justified, for Middle-Palóc speakers are becoming bilingual thanks to the dominance of the official state language. Their usage is also being influenced by the Hungarian standard language. Datatransmitters viewed their dialect in a more negative way. They preferred the standard language version to the dialectical lexeme. When compared with the data of MNyA, there are considerable changes in the speakers’ vocabulary. Archaic words died out or became rarely used. The impact of standard language can also be felt in morphological and phonological features, but, in general, observational points preserved their dialectical identity. The oldest generation uses the most archaic words. In the case of the middle-aged dialectical words and neologisms go hand in hand. Dialectical words are becoming extinct in the usage of the young.
Characteristic features of the Palóc dialect: System of vowels: The phonematic system of Middle-Palóc dialect still has the form of 8:8. Western-Palóc has 8:8, phoneme long # is rare: #m (gy. Eastern-Palóc has 8:7, closed (, but phoneme # is missing. Contrast between e- ( is missing so the closedness rate of the standardized e phoneme is strong, among its variants can be in the middle position of tongue ( ~ @~ H . Phonological changes: The above mentioned dialects are still being characterized by the dialectical ™, # and the closed (. The situation is the same in Ludányhalászi (observational point in Hungary), however, it can be observed only in the pronunciation of people with general knowledge. Some students in Bolyk (Middle-Palóc) use standardized forms of a, á due to the code-changing mechanism. Generally, the closed # (k#z, h#t, j#g) is getting out of usage. The ’-í-zés’ (pronounced as e: in English) remained typical on the observational points: kelís, penísz. The Palóc dialect is the most illabial so there are many illabial ’í-zés’: kilső, siket. In front of the consonants l, r, j the short vowels are typical (tehen, vereb) mainly among older datatransmitters and people with general knowledge. Young people use it in the family. Diphthongs appeared only in Zsip and Gice. As far as the consonants are concerned, their pronunciation is identical with the pronunciation of the standard language. The only exception is ly, which appeared at every observational point. Gice (Western-Palóc): lyuk, mosolyog, vőfély. This was not peculiar to this observational point, in this case only two older datatransmitters used it. The ’l-ezés’ is more frequent in Gice: j#szol. Sometimes l is omitted so the period is getting longer: kódús,
6
kócsot. Syllable-ending l is omitted inside the word: kóbász, nyóc, ódal, ződ, bőcső, kőcsön. On the Middle-Palóc observational points the voiceless h is assimilated: m(hh™l. G of the prefix meg gets assimilated everywhere: mejjelöli, mevverem. Palatalization is common at every observational point (ribizlyi, térgy, gyijó), just like depalatalization: pendel, v™ló, luk. Notion of ’hangátvetés és a hangkivetés’1 is typical: comb/bonc, cs™l#n/cs™n#l, instead of rj there is rny: bornyú, v#rnyú. Consonant-shortening remained general: könyű, lőtem, in#m, v™n™k. In Ludányhalászi ’í-zés’ is on the edge of dying out, only a few examples can be mentioned. On the other hand, there was no closed ’í-zés’ in unstressed position, but now it is present in the dialect, e. g. kikiny. Open e existed, too (g(dó, g(d™), but it is completely missing now. Morphological changes: As far as verb-roots are concerned, sounds in them are reversed: sepersz: sepresz, söpresz. The only exception is Ludányhalászi where we can observe a special change in root structure: evett, ivott (base verb, ate and drank in English) ett, itt(Ludányhalászi) - et, it (Gice). In dialects ’jön’(standard form, come in English) has these roots in pronunciation: gyö-, gyü- in words like gyön, gyün, gyönnek, gyünnek. Verbs ending in -ik (’ikes igék’) preserve their form without suffix at Zsip, Ludányhalászi, Csáb: gyónik: gyón, at Bolyk gyovon. The past tense of one-syllable verb ending in -t is being created without ’tővéghangzó’: ütötte: ütte. M of the prefix meg- is assimilated to the verb: memmozsdik, memmozsgyik, memmosakodik. It is common at Bolyk and Zsip, but not at Magyarhegymeg and Ludányhalászi. Roots of nouns: there is no change in special roots with elision ending in consonants: selyem: selymet, bokor: bokrok, tücsök: tücskök. Changes can be recognized in one-syllable roots with short and long vowel alteration: húszat: huszat, húszas: huszas, húgom: hugom. In roots such as szekér, szekér e correspondence is very common: in base form: szeker, level, tehen, kerek, eger, vereb, hetfő and szekerre,szekeren, but now it is rare, in parallel with the standard form. Affixes like -ért, -ig, -é remain short in roots ending with vowel : f™jé ’fáért’, ™pj™é, ’apjáé’, f™jig ’fáig’. In the case of roots that modify both the length and the quality of the vowel have forms like: erdeje: erdeje, erdője, erdőji. The vowel remains long in the so called ’v’ roots in Palóc: füvet: fűvet, bajusza: bajúsza.
1
Hangátvetés és hangkivetés – notion in Hungarian phonology when sounds of the given word are reversed or omitted as a result of different pronounciation, e. g. in dialects.
7
Suffixes: Suffixes that form verbs: megpenészedik: meppenészegyik at Bolyk, kiherélik: kiherélyik at Ludányhalászi. Suffixes -dos,-des,-dös replaced -kod, -ked, -köd (active voice, deverbal suffix expressing habitual actions) : k™pkod: k™pdos. Suffixes to form nouns, adjectives etc.: little difference when compared to standard usage. Forms of infinitive suffixes change: hívni: hínyi, inni: innyi, inny™. These forms are obsolete at Ludányhalászi and Gice. Suffixes -cska, -cske, -ka, -ke are common at observational points: kenyérke, borocsk™. Privative suffix -tal, -tel (sót™l™n) appears in the records of MNYA, now sótl™n or s™jt™l™n at Zsip. Suffixes to form ordinal numbers: -dik: m#sogyik, h™rm™gyik – older generation, they use palatalized forms. Inflectional features: Inflection of verbs: type of ’-ik’ suffix: eszik, fekszik – no difference compared to standard language. There are examples with no -ik: gyónik, gyón, gyovon. This is widespread at observational points except Magyarhegymeg. Gyovonik is present at Bolyk. Singular, 1. person, declarative sentences, inflection -k is characteristic: alszom: ™lszok, iszom: iszok, enném (subject): ennék.(true for all observational point). Standard forms are known at points, the only exception is Ludányhalászi. Singular, 1. person, conditional – appearence of -ná causes ’nákozás’: innám (subject): inn#k, innék, enném (subject): ennék. At every observational point, at Ludányhalászi as well. Singular, 1. person, imperative mood: aludjam: ™luggy™k, 3. person: aludjék:™luggyon, ™luggyék. Standard form is known at Ludányhalászi. 3. person inflection –n: megy: megyen is general, just like megyek: menek. Declarative mood, present tense, Plural, 1. person, verbs with objective conjugation: -uk, -ük fogjuk: foguk, akarjuk: ™k™ruk, nyomjuk : nyomuk. It is in general use in Palóc. ’Suksükölés’ gets into the standard language, in imperative mood of declarative sentences ’tárgyas ragozásban’: tanítsa: t™níccs™. Inflection of nouns: forms -hoz, -hez, -höz also exist in -ho, he, -hö: az asztalhoz: ™szt™lho, székhez: székhe, székhö, a tűzhöz: tűzhö. Standard forms and dialectical words live side by side at observational points. V from inflections -val, -vel is not assimilated in every case: lábbal: l#bv™l, l#bb™l, kézzel: kézvel, kézzel. Its use depends on the educational competencies of informants. Inflection of inessivus -ban, -ben is replaced by -ba, -be to answer the question Where?: házban: házba, kertben: kertbe, kerbe. L is omitted from inflections -ból,- ből, -ról, ről- tól, -től: asztalról: ™szt™rró, kertből: kertbő. The syllableending l is -nál, -nél: Sándoréknál: S#ndorékn#, bírónál: bírón#. Inflections -ni, -nyi in the meaning of ’ékhoz’ is alive at Bolyk: S#ndornyi, at Magyarhegymeg: bírónyi, at Zsip: S#ndornyi, Erzsinyi. Realizations of possesive case: -ok, -ek, -ök -jok, -jek, -jök: házok, 8
örömök ’örömük’, kecskéjek, disznójok. In plural, 1. person -unk/-ünk is replaced by ónk/-őnk: m™d™rónk, kertőn at Ludányhalászi. Singular, 3. person, possesive case -i, -ji is common in Middle and Eastern-Palóc: veji, bőri, füli. Plural, 1. person, possesive case -ónk, -őnk: madarónk, at Ludányhalászi, at Bolyk died out, at Gice is still present. Comparison of adjectives: prefix leg- is replaced by -let: letszebb ’legszebb’. No records can be found now.
Lexical changes: In terms of lexemes the following variation can be recognized at Palóc observational points: Dialectical words, which are totally unknown in the standard language (’valódi, fogalmi tájszók’) are rare, e. g. At Magyarhegymeg: tócsa: pocsér ’híg iszap’ (meaning: tenuous puddle) → it is not known today Dialectical words, which denote notions and objects known in the standard language, however, the dialectical form is expressed by the lexeme which is not present in the standard usage (’valódi, névbeli tájszók) – they are in use at observational points: e. g. : a borítólevél( kukoricáé, part of corn): sústy™, fosztyink™, susny™,, csimasz: pondró, p™jod, p™jor ’Jelentésbeli tájszók’ are dialectical words, which have identical forms with the standard version, they differ in meaning, common at observational points: e. g. bajusza (a kukoricáé, floss of the corn): h™j™ , → now the term refers to human hair, baglyok: b™gók(plural of owl), → in slang means ’cash’, csalamádé: → now in the meaning of garnish to meat, not fodder The ’alaki tájszó’ differs only in pronounciation: e. g. m™g™s - m™gos, bokor - bukor.
The relation between dialectical word and standard version: 1. The standard version supplants the dialectical word: e. g. székhö, székh (→ székhez, b(gre, b#dog→ bögre 2. The two forms coexist side by side with difference in meaning: e.g. . jászol: j#szol (manger) –’feeder for the cattle’, j#szol – ’Christmas creb’ 3. The dialectical words are getting assimilated to the standard version: e. g. : oskol™ → iskola: ösmerős → ismerős, ibork™ → uborka 4. Meanings of the dialectical words, which are different from the standard usage are becoming less frequent: e.g. jászol: j#szoly less frequent in the sense of ’feeder’ csalamádé: cs™l™m#dé less frequent in the sense of ’fodder’.
9
Changes compared to MNyA: 1. The lexeme is completely missing, no data can be found in new gatherings: pendely: péntöl at Csáb, 2. A new word has been introduced: lyuk: juk: luk at Bolyk, Magyarhegymeg, Zsip, Gice
Lexemes that were generally used in MNyA: 1. the general item remained general: innék (ő): the dialectical word inn™ is still in general use, the standard form is not spread. 2. the general item is spread over other observational points: bíróhoz: form bíróho is common at every observational point, bírónyi is on the brink of extinction. 3. lexemes which were generally used, are archaic now: bőri at every observational point. 4. the general item became rarely used: form ok#dik was replaced by h#ny in the course of new gatherings. 5. the item was general in the past, now only a few people know it: kezes: belső (indicated the position of oxen when hitched). 6. the general item died out: v™st™g in the sense of ’pregnant’ at Bolyk, Ludányhalászi. 7. New items appeared with no record in MNyA: gyüttek: gyöttek – new item is the standard jöttek. 8. the given notion is not included in MNyA: hajdina, naspolya
Items marked as archaic: 1.it was marked as archaic in MNyA, now died out: a bögre: b(gre 2. archaic in MNyA, now rare: a gereblye: gereble at Csáb 3. archaic in MNyA, now it is in general use: a szalma: szóm™
Items marked as rare: 1. the item was marked as rare in MNyA, remained rare: kamra: komor™ Gice 2. rare in MNyA, now archaic: fejőedény zsét#r at Bolyk 3. rare in MNyA, now died out: birsalma vis™lm at Csáb 4. rare in MNyA, now it is spread: kézzel: kézzel (standard form) at Magyarhegymeg 5. rare in MNyA, now the lexeme is generally used: aludjék:™luggyon (dialectical word) at Magyarhegymeg 10
Lexemes marked as neologisms in MNyA: 1. have become general: általános használatúvá lettek: e. g.: meggy : m(ggy(dialectical pronounciation) at Csáb 2. neologism in MNyA, now neologism as well: csipkebogyó: csipke at Bolyk 3. neologism in MNyA, now died out: mennydörög: m(ndörög at Ludányhalászi 4. neologism in MNyA, now rare: füle: füli at Ludányhalászi 5. neologism in MNyA, now archaic:fésű: fésü at Bolyk
A lexeme has undergone changes/alternations: E. g. csalamádé, in 50s, it meant corn grown for feeding purposes. This meaning still lives on today, however, the word acquired new connotation at Bolyk and Gice – garnish. jászoly (1016): question: What is the name of the object from which the cattle eat?: jászoly, jászoj, jászol. It is used also for the Christmas crib: j#szol-Betlehem at Csáb, Zsip, Gice, j#szoj- Betlehem at Csáb, Magyarhegymeg, Gice.
Lexemes can be divided into subdivisons according to the extent of proportion features: 1. Proportionless designation system: alternations in pronounciation: k(nyér: kenyér, káposzta: k#poszt™ 2. Proportioned designation system: a) formally proportioned: these are phonetical alternations: gyűsző: gyűszü: gyűszű b) Proportioned designation system: Strongly proportioned: at least 5 items: teknő: tekenő, tekny’, tekenőá, teken’, tekn’, teknà, t„k„n’ Moderately proportioned: 3-4 items: kockatészta: kock™: sifli, siflyi, h™lusk™ Ill - proportioned: 2 items: bokor: bukor, bokor
11
4. Summary of the new scientific results As far as dialects are concerned, these new results were found: General consequences: Ludányhalászi is an village in Hungary, where informants use the regional standard/standard language both in school and shop. People use dialects only in family. The only exceptions are older informants, who are not ashamed of using dialectical words, however, they are fully aware of the fact that the media uses ’ more beautiful language’. Bolyk lies in Middle-Palóc district near to Losonc. It is more urban village than Zsip or Magyarhegymeg. From here young people often go to cinema to Salgótarján or Budapest. Magyarhegymeg and Zsip are considered to be the most archaic from observational points, however, the impact of regional standard is felt mainly because inhabitants attend school and go for work to Rimaszombat (Gömör). Gice is the most remote village from the observational points. It is surrounded by Slovak villages with no city nearby. Here the dialect is preserved, but there is a danger of becoming Slovak in the near future. Phonological changes: - At Ludányhalászi dialectical a, á, is dying out, informants consider this kind of pronounciation dialectical, they are being influenced by education and media. - Young people at Bolyk try to speak ’more beautifully’, their pronounciation is characterized by code-changing. As a result, the standard labial a, á appeared. - At Gice ly appeared, which was not typical before. Language of the informants was also onfluenced by other factors. Morphological changes: - At Ludányhalászi the forms of infinitive change: hívni: hínyi, inni: innyi, inny™, which did not appear at new gatherings. - At Bolyk: Plural, 1. person ending in -ónk/-őnk: m™d™rónk, kertőnk – it is missing now.
Lexical changes: - Dialectical words, which are totally unknown in the standard language(’valódi, fogalmi tájszók’) are rare, e. g. At Magyarhegymeg: tócsa: pocsér ’híg iszap’ (meaning: tenuous puddle) → it is not known today - The relation between dialectical word and standard version:
12
- The standard version supplants the dialectical word: e. g. székhö, székh(→ székhez, b(gre, b#dog→ bögre a köznyelvi szó kiszorítja a tájszót: pl. székhö, székh(→ székhez, b(gre, b#dog→ bögre, - meanings of the dialectical words, which are different from the standard usage are becoming less frequent: e.g. jászol: j#szoly less frequent in the sense of ’feeder’ csalamádé: cs™l™m#dé less frequent in the sense of ’fodder’. - Changes compared to MNyA: - the lexeme is completely missing, no data can be found in new gatherings: pendely: péntöl at Csáb, - a new word has been introduced: lyuk: juk: luk at Bolyk, Magyarhegymeg, Zsip, Gice - the general item remained general: innék (ő): the dialectical word inn™ is still in general use, the standard form is not spread. általános elem általános maradt: innék (ő): a nyelvjárási inn™ - the general item died out: v™st™g in the sense of ’pregnant’ at Bolyk, Ludányhalászi, the given
notion
is
not
included
in
MNyA:
hajdina,
naspolya,
- it was marked as archaic in MNyA, now died out: a bögre: b(gre, burgonya at Gice, archaic in MNyA, now rare: a gereblye: gereble at Csáb - archaic in MNyA, now it is in general use: a szalma: szóm™ - rare in MNyA, now died out: birsalma vis™lm Csáb - rare in MNyA, now it is spread: kézzel: kézzel (standard form) at Magyarhegymeg,
-
rare in MNyA, now the lexeme is generally used: aludjék:™luggyon(dialectical word) at Magyarhegymeg. - neologism in MNyA, now died out: mennydörög: m(ndörög at Ludányhalászi - neologism in MNyA, now rare: füle: füli at Ludányhalászi - neologism in MNyA, now archaic:fésű: fésü at Bolyk - The dialectical designation is said to be well-proportioned at observational points, for a lexeme has many variants: e. g. melleskötény, krumplinúdli, tuskó.
5. References Balogh Lajos 1989. A palóc nyelvjárások. In: Palócok I., Kutatástörténet, földrajz és néprajz, (red.) Bakó Ferenc, Eger, 345–377. Balogh Lajos – Deme László – Imre Samu 1980. Mutató a Magyar nyelvjárások atlasza IVI. kötetéhez. Akadémiai Kiadó. Budapest. Balogh Lajos – Pelle Béláné 1972. Palóc kutatás. Kérdőív a palóc nyelvjárási sajátságok felkutatásához. In: Módszertani Közlemények, XII., Eger.
13
Bárczi Géza 1944. A magyar nyelvatlasz előkészítése. Kiadja
a Magyar Nyelvatlsz
Bizottság, A Magyar Nyelvatlasz Munkálatai kiadvány sorozat, Budapest, 1–26. Bárczi Géza 1947. Mutatvány a magyar nyelvatlasz próbagyűjtéseiből, Magyar Nyelvatlaszbizottság, Budapest, 1942. Cs. Nagy Lajos é. n. Nyelvművelő feladatainkról kisebbségi helyzetben In: Éltető anyanyelvünk. Mai nyelvművelésünk elmélete és gyakorlata. Írások Grétsy László 70. születésnapjára. Tinta Könyvkiadó, Budapest. 371–376. Deme László 1956. Nyelvatlaszunk funkciója és további problémái. Akadémai Kiadó, Budapest. Deme László – Imre Samu (red.) 1968–1977. A magyar nyelvjárások atlasza. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. Deme László – Imre Samu 1975. A Magyar nyelvjárások atlaszának elméleti-módszertani kérdései. Akadémiai Kiadó. Budapest. Guttmann Miklós 1989. Az anyanyelvi nevelés és a nyelvi környezet. In: Magyartanítás 1989/4–6, 218–224. Hegedűs Attila 2005. A változó nyelvjárás. Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszékének Kiadványai. PPKE BTK, Piliscsaba. Imre Samu 1950. A Magyar Nyelvatlasz Kérdőíve I. rész. Nyelvtudományi Intézet. (kézirat) Imre Samu 1958. Egy nyelvatlasz-gyűjtés néhány tanulsága. In: Magyar Nyelv. LIV.évf., Pais Dezső – Benkő Loránd (red.), Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság folyóirata, június, 2.szám, 372–380. Imre Samu – Kálmán Béla 1953. Nyelvatlaszgyűjtő úton Csehszlovákiában. In: Magyar Nyelv XLIX.évf., október, 1–2.szám, Pais Dezső – Benkő Loránd (red.), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 229–231. Imre Samu – Kálmán Béla 1954. A szlovákiai nyelvatlaszgyűjtés tájszóanyaga. In: Magyar Nyelv XLIX. évf., október, 1–2.szám, Pais Dezső – Benkő Loránd (red.), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 212–221. Imre Samu – Kálmán Béla 1960. Beszámoló szlovákiai nyelvatlasz-gyűjtésünkről. In: Magyar Nyelvjárások VI., Kálmán Béla (red.), Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, 124–146. Juhász Dezső 1990. A nyelv és a kultúra együttes vizsgálatának lehetőségei a magyar nyelvjárási és néprajzi atlaszok alapján. In: Congressus septimus internationalis fennougristarum, Debrecen, 245–250.
14
Kálmán Béla 1950. A Magyar Nyelvatlasz Kérdőíve II. rész. Nyelvtudományi Intézet. (manuscript) Kiss Jenő 1981. Újabb változásvizsgálati lehetőségek a nyelvjáráskutatásban. In: Nyelvjárási tanulmányok. A Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság Kiadványai 159. sz. Budapest, 6–16. Kiss Jenő (red.) 2001. Magyar dialektológia. Osiris Kiadó, Budapest. . Kiss Jenő 2003. A magyar nyelv területi változatai. In: A magyar nyelv kézikönyve, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 269–300. Kiss Jenő 2006. Egy új magyar nemzeti nyelvatlasz szükséges voltáról. In: Magyar Nyelv, CII. évf., 2.szám, június, 129–142. Kiss Jenő 2008. MTA-ELTE Geolingvisztikai Kutatócsoport (presentation). In: www.umnya.elte.hu. Kiss Jenő 2009. Készülőben az új magyar nyelvjárási atlasz. Gondolatok, észrevételek. In: Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis, XXXVI. köt., Zimányi Árpád (red.), Eger, Az Eszterházy Károly Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei, 196–203. Kiss Jenő 2010. Gondolatok az új magyar nyelvjárási atlasz előkészítése után és anyagának gyűjtése közben. In: Kontexty identity. Jubilejný zborník na počesť Anny Divičanovej. Az identitás összefüggései. Köszöntő könyv Gyivicsán Anna tiszteletére. Békešská Čaba – Béséscsaba. 184–188. Lanstyák István – Szabómihály Gizella 1998g. Standard – köznyelv – nemzeti nyelv. Kontra Miklós – Saly Noémi (red.), Nyelvmentés vagy nyelvárulás – Vita a határon túli nyelvhasználatról. Budapest, Osiris. 211–216. Posgay Ildikó 2004. Nyelvek, nyelvjárások kölcsönhatása a Kárpátok régiójában. In: Nyelvvesztés, nyelvjárásvesztés, nyelvcsere. P. Lakatos Ilona, T. Károlyi Margit (red.), Tinta Könyvkiadó, Budapest. 175–178. Sándor Anna 2002. A szlovákiai magyar nyelvjáráskutatás feladatai. In: Szőrös Kő, VII. évf., 6 szám, 30–35. Vörös Ottó 2004. A nyelvvesztés fokozatai egyének és kisközösségek névhasználatában. In: Nyelvvesztés, nyelvjárásvesztés, nyelvcsere. P. Lakatos Ilona, T. Károlyi Margit (red.), Tinta Könyvkiadó, Budapest. 253–258. Zelliger Erzsébet 2004. Nyelvi kontaktusok egy családban. In: Nyelvvesztés, nyelvjárásvesztés, nyelvcsere. P. Lakatos Ilona, T. Károlyi Margit (red..), Tinta Könyvkiadó, Budapest.
15
6. List of own publications on the topic: Csíkány Andrea 2005a. A fordító- és tolmácsjelöltek kódváltásai. In: Irodalmi és nyelvi hatások az integráció folyamatában (a 2005. febr.16-i konferencia anyaga). Alabán Ferenec (red.), Besztercebánya, 163–174. Csíkány Andrea 2005b. Kódváltás, kódváltogatás és kódkeverés (A monterka, alobal és balkón esete a munkaruhával, alufóliával és az erkéllyel). In: A magyar szemiotika negyedfél évtized után, Semiotica Agriensis 1. (a kötet a 2003, november 21–22-i és 2004. október 16– 17-i egri szemiotikai konferenciák – Ifjú szemiotikusok 1. és 2. konferenciája, Miért hasznos a szemiotika? - válogatott anyagát tartalmazza). Balázs Géza – H. Varga Gyula – Veszelszky Ágnes (red.), Líceum Kiadó, Budapest – Eger, 146–152. Csíkány Andrea 2005c. Fordító – és tolmácsjelöltek szóhasználata a kódváltás tükrében. In: Acta Acadeniae Paedagogicae Agriensis. Zimányi Árpád (red.), Eger, 151–157. Csíkány Andrea 2006. Felföldi magyar szakos hallgatók kódváltásai. In: Klaudy Kinga, Dobos Csilla (red.), A világ nyelvei és a nyelvek világa, MANYE XV., 2/2 kötet, Pécs – Miskolc, MANYE – Miskolci Egyetem, 11–15. Csíkány Andrea 2006a. Prepínanie kódu v mentálnom lexikóne. In: Preklad a tlmočenie 7., UMB FIF, Banská Bystrica, 113–122. Csíkány Andrea 2006b. Balkón z aspektu zmeny kódov. In: Analytické sondy do textu 2., UMB FIF, Banská Bystrica, 123–126. Csíkány Andrea 2006c. Kódváltás és mentális lexikon. In: Kontextus – Filogógia – Kultúra, Univerzita Mateja Bela, FIF – Eszterházy Károly Fősikola, BFK, Banská Bystrica – Eger, 279–288. Csíkány Andrea 2006d. Bolyk község nyelvi változásai. In: Félúton, az ELTE Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskolájának konferenciája 2005. június 12., Zsilinszky Éva – Érsok Nikoletta Ágnes – Slíz Mariann (red.), Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság, Budapest, 13–21. Csíkány Andrea 2006e. Az ismételt nyelvjárási szógyűjtések mai nehézségeiről. In: Magyar Nyelvjárások XLIV., Hoffmann István – Kis Tamás – Nyirkos István (red.), Magyar Nyelvtudományi Tanszék, Debrecen, 113–116. Csíkány Andrea 2007. Mentálny lexikón a asociácie v preklade. In: Preklad a kultúra 2. Gromová, Edita – Müglová, Daniela (red.), Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa, Filozofická fakulta, Nyitra, 114–120. Csíkány Andrea 2007a. Öltözködési szokások szemantikai reprezentálása a közép-palóc nyelvjárásban. In: Szemiotika és tipológia. A komplex jelek kutatása. Semiotica Agriensis 4.,
16
a 2006. október 20–22-i egri szemiotikai konferenciák anyaga, Balázs Géza – H.Varga Gyula (red.), Magyar Szemiotikai Társaság, Budapest, Líceum Kiadó, Eger, 116–121. Csíkány Andrea 2007b. Változások a palóc nyelvjárásokban. In: Nyelv, területiség, társadalom, Zelliger Erzsébet (red.), MNyTK, 228. szám, Budapest, 178–185. Csíkány Andrea 2008. Palóc adatközlők nyelvhasználatának változásai. In: Kontextus – Filológia – Kultúra II., Alabán Ferenc (red.), Besztercebánya, 85–90. Csíkány Andrea 2009. A nyelvhasználat és kultúra szerepe a közép-palóc nyelvjárásban In: Az interkulturális kommunikáció nyelvi aspektusai közép-európai közegben, Alabán Ferenc (red.), Banská Bystrica, 179–186. Csíkány Andrea 2010. Atlaszgyűjtési tapasztalatok szlovákiai magyar nyelvjárási kutatópontokon. In: Fórum Társadalomtudományi Szemle, XII.évf. 1.szám, Csanda Gábor (red.), Somorja, 95–102. Csíkány Andrea 2010a. Palóc szavak irodalmi művekben és a nyelvatlasz-kutatópontok kapcsolata. In: Az interkulturális kommunikáció irodalmi aspektusai közép-európai közegben. Alabán Ferenc (red.), Besztercebánya, 108–117.
17
