Morphological, syntactic and lexical section

THE AIM OF OUR INQUIRY is to explore some linguistic variables listed below as well as to elicit continuous spontaneous speech from every informant, which would also allow for the investigation of several questions that are not included in the present discussion. The first aim is to be achieved through various tests while the latter through guided conversation.

A LINGUISTIC VARIABLE is a linguistic element that has variants. The variants can be related to the speech style and the social position (socio-economic status) of the speakers. The variables are amenable to quantitative description and probably play a key role in language change. Language variables can be described in rules - such rules define the socio-regional conditions under which the variants appear. To take a simple example, it is not known today how the use of -ba forms in -ban functions relates to various speech styles, whether educated speakers use this variable in a different way than uneducated ones (irrespective of style and/or as a function of it), nor is it known whether the use of alternants is affected by linguistic context. Intuitively, one could presume, for example that ``inconsistencies'' like ebbe a házban `into-this the house-in' do not occur, however, there is evidence for the occurrence of such forms (cf. Váradi 1990 and 1994). The two types of data collected in the Survey (roughly: the test data and the guided conversation) complement each other: without the test results we could not make COMPARATIVE analysis across informants, whereas without continuous speech data we could not analyse such characteristics of particular elements in speech as their frequency, contextual dependency etc.

The fact that some research questions are listed explicitely and others are not does not mean the latter are neglected. For example, it is important to find out in what contexts Hungarian sentences with so called flat and eradicating intonation are used (cf. Komlósy 1987). The answer to this question requires the prosodic analysis of a sizeable spoken corpus - but no specific data gathering is needed. Obviously, the spoken corpus makes it possible to investigate several problems not listed here or not even thought of today.

Research topics in morphology

1.

-ba forms in -ban functions cf. (9)

2.

Loan words with alternating suffixes cf. (10)

3.

The social distribution of the so-called -suk/-sük conjugation.   In Standard Hungarian there is a consistent distinction between the indicative and imperative verbal paradigms of verbs ending in root final t , e.g. lát-ja `he sees it' vs. lás-sa `he should see it'. This distinction does not obtain in most Hungarian dialects: speakers use the imperative form in place of the indicative forms, e.g. lássa for standard látja . This phenomenon, called -suk/-sük conjugation, is about as heavily stigmatized as multiple negation in English. The Survey will gather data about its social distribution via the cards, the reporter's test (cf. Ball 1986) and guided conversations. (For relevant findings in the Hungarian National Sociolinguistic Survey see Váradi and Kontra 1995.)

4.

The first person singular conditional verbal suffix is -nék regardless of the vowels of the stem e.g. en-nék `I would eat' and alud-nék `I would sleep'. Instead of this invariant standard suffix, dialect speakers often use harmonic suffixes, e.g. en-nék but alud-nák . This dialect feature is heavily stigmatized. The Survey will gather data on its social distribution. (For relevant findings in the Hungarian National Sociolinguistic Survey see Pléh 1995.)

5.

The variation

• according to the social position of speakers and
• the context awareness of speakers

in the use of some verbs that can be conjugated according to -ik and non-ik paradigms. The -ik conjugation characterizes primarily ``the educated standard'' or careful style (cf. SPG I:1011), it is least stable in imperative and conditional mood, therefore this is where the biggest variation can be expected. It is presumed that educated speakers will be more sensitive to context than uneducated informants so our hypothesis is that educated speakers will use more -ik forms in formal contexts than uneducated speakers. In other words, educated speakers are more sensitive to context and this is shown in their choice of -ik vs. non-ik forms. Research tools: cards (iszom and iszok , virágozzon and virágozzék ) together with a number of relevant parts of the interview as well as the total corpus of continuous speech.

6.

Jöttök and jösztök . According to SPG the latter is the ``familiar'' variant of the verb-form meaning 'you-pl. come'. We are not certain it is just familiar, it might be regionally or socially tied.

7.

Szabadott. The adjective szabad `free' and the auxiliary szabad `may' clash in Hungarian. In standard Hungarian `he was allowed to' is szabad volt . In nonstandard it is szabadott . According to SPG (II:730) more careful style insists on the ``more beautiful and judicious'' construction szabad volt . The Survey investigates the social distribution of this nonstandard form. Research tool: cards.

8.

Miér vs. miért `why'. t is often deleted in speech. We want to find out the exact conditions under which t is deleted.

9.

Possessive inflections. The suffix -é in Hungarian equals the English 's genitive, e.g. Peter's = Péter-é. The plurality of the things possessed is denoted by the Hungarian suffix -i , e.g. The children are Peter's = A gyerekek Péter-é-i . This final plural suffix is often dropped, ``ungrammatically'', in speech. Can we detect signs of some simplification in present-day Hungarian morphology here?

Research topics in syntax

1.

  The interrogative particle -e . ``In standard speech it is a gross mistake ...to append it to the preverbal particle, to the nominal part of the predicate or in a compound verb form to the main verb'' (SPG I:458). What is the social distribution of this heavily stigmatized syntactic feature? (For relevant findings in the Hungarian National Sociolinguistic Survey see Kassai 1995.)

2.

  Természetesen, hogy . According to current prescriptive grammar (1) and (2) are correct:

      (1)  Term'eszet-es-en igazad van.

				`Nature-al-ly   you are right'

		(2)		Term'eszet-es, hogy igazad van.

				`Nature-al     that  you are right'

   

but (3) is incorrect:

   

		(3)		Term'eszet-es-en, hogy igazad van.

				`Nature-al-ly that  you are right'

SPG (II:803) holds that such structural blends are considered ``not very serious mistakes''. However, informal evidence suggests that a syntactic change is going on here. (For relevant findings in the Hungarian National Sociolinguistic Survey see Kontra 1992.)

Research tools: cards and the entire corpus, that is, a concordance of the word hogy of all guided conversations will give us all of the instances of such blends as well as all instances of the traditionally correct structures.

3.

  ami vs. amely. According to traditional grammar the word ami 'what (relative pronoun)' refers to antecedents expressed by non-nouns. The word amely 'which (relative)' should refer to antecedents expressed by nouns. Despite prescriptivists' guidance, however, ami tends to be used in both cases. Amely can also be used hypercorrectly, as in the following example:

      Van valami ebben a dologban, amely nem vil'agos 

		`is something in-this thing-in which not clear'

SPG (I:206) also says that ami is ``increasingly more frequently'' used in sentences like

      Meg'erkeztek a k"onyvek, amiket/amelyeket
megrendeltünk 

		   `arrived   the books    what/which      we ordered'

Research tools: cards and the entire corpus. A concordance analysis of ami/amely in the guided conversations, together with the test results is expected to yield reliable evidence that can make more precise, or indeed understandable at all, the qualification ``increasingly more frequent'' in SPG.

4.

  objects with possessive personal suffix and a verb . Next to such an object the verb can fluctuate between the definite and the indefinite conjugation. (Hungarian verbs can be conjugated definitely and indefinitely.) There is variation e.g. (a) next to a partitive object

      Mari kimosott/kimosta           egy
ingemet ,

		`Mary washed-indef./washed-def.   a my-shirt'

(SPG II:960), and (b) next to the determiner minden + an object with possessive suffix, e.g.

      Pista   minden  k"onyvemet   elvitt/elvitte. 

		
 `Steve  all     my-books    took-indef./took-def.'

The use of definite conjugation verbs in such cases is ``more frequent'', SPG states (II:961), but it is not known what exactly this increased frequency actually means. Cf. Komlósy 1987:16-17.

Research tools: cards.

Three lexical issues

• felolt and felgyújt . The verb felolt 'extinguish up' used in the sense of 'turn on /the light/' is a semantic anomaly, but frequently used. Felgyújt is the correct standard form.

  Research tool: reporter's test.

• What does the word demográfia mean?

  Demográfiát akarunk? Meg kell adóztatni a gyerekteleneket `Do we want demography? Childless couples should be taxed then.' - a speaker on a live TV program said on 10 December 1986. The speech of more or less uneducated speakers often shows the use of certain fashionable words with transferred meaning, e.g. Nincs egyetértés a politika és az írók között, `There is no agreement between the policy and writers' i.e. between politicians and writers. It may be presumed that the spread of such ``inaccuracies'' correlates with the educational background and/or socio-economic status of speakers in that the more educated speakers interpret the word in its literal sense whereas less educated speakers allow transferred senses as well.

  Research tool: cards.

• Tuzokapocskiszedo. The staple remover test

  The Hungarian equivalent of stapler is fuzogép or tuzogép . The Comprehensive English-Hungarian Dictionary by Országh lists staples as fuzo(gép)-kapocs , papírfuzo/könyvfuzo drótkapocs or simply kapocs . Staple removers, the handy devices that serve to remove the staples easily and without damaging the hand or the paper, were unknown in Hungary in 1986. They made their first appearance in stationery stores in early 1987 selling at around 20-30 forints. In June 1987 shop assistants in the stationery store in Felszabadulás tér, Budapest put down the name of the article on the receipt as tuzogép or fuzokapocskiszedo . This term was used only on the receipt as the goods themselves were sold unpacked, without any brand name and description of the article. In short: we are currently witnessing the spread of a new device at a time when the object practically is without a name. Even those who have been using it for years (because they got it from abroad) are at a loss to name it, as shown by the following two conversations:

  1.

  - Do you know what this is called? (shows up the object)

  - This is what you've brought everyone from America.

  - What's its name?

  - I don't know. Some [pause] remover. [pause] Are you testing me?

  2.

  - What's this in my hand?

  - Clipremover.

  - But it's not clips this thing handles ...

  - What is it called, [pause] gee, what IS it called?

  At this point the man in the second conversation took out his own stapler, looked at the package (which was Czechoslovakian, without any Hungarian script) and then said: It's got no Hungarian name, interesting ...

  Apart from the official register of goods, we can claim that in 1987 the item in question has no received name, or it may have too many names, because a name is only in the making these days, a name that in a few years' time will uniquely serve to identify what people cannot name at the moment. In short: we have a unique opportunity here to catch the birth of a word in statu nascendi .

  Recommended research procedure:

  1.

  The field worker shows a staple remover to the informant and asks ``Have you ever seen such a thing?''

  2.

  Field worker to informant: ``What is this?''

  3.

  If answer is ``I don't know what it is'', then field worker says: ``OK, I'll show you what it's for''. Then s/he demonstrates how the remover is used.

  4.

  Field worker: ``Now, what is this?''

  5.

  Field worker holds up stapler and asks: ``What is this?''

  6.

  Field worker holds up staple and asks: ``What is this?''

  7.

  Finally field worker holds up staple remover and asks for a name again.

Other items collected

After the planning phase of this research, when the resarch topics had been finalized, we realized that a number of variable items which were not listed originally (see 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) could also be collected. The following list contains such items, as they have also been coded and arereadily retrievable from the BSI database.

pénze - péndze

fel- - föl-

l + j

ezben (=ebben)

se - sem

ablaka - ablakja

kell mennem - kell menni

szoloje - szoleje

egyed - edd

odébb - odább

pettyest - pettyeset

olvashatók - olvashatóak

nála - nálánál

kinlódjanak - killódjanak

javitással - javitásal

lom(b)talanít - lom(b)tanít

klozet - klozett

ajánlkozik - ajálkozik

kom(m)unisták - kom(m)onisták

mozga:mban

borból - borbul

hutoben - hüttoben

csöndben - csendben

állította - álította

ezért - ezér - ezé (and other lenition)

elküld-ték

pénzért - pézért

utoljára - utóljára

posta - pósta

References

Ball, Martin J. 1986. The reporter's test as a sociolinguistic tool. Language in Society 15:375-386.

Kassai, Ilona. 1995. Prescription and reality: the case of the interrogative particle in Hungarian. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 111:21-30.

Komlósy, András. 1987. Mondattani kérdések. Ajánlások a budapesti köznyelvi vizsgálatok adatfelvételéhez. (Syntactic questions. Recommendations on data collection for the Survey of Spoken Hungarian.) Manuscript, 1987.

Kontra, Miklós. 1992. On an ongoing syntactic merger in Hugarian. In: Kenesei, István & Csaba Pléh (eds.) Approaches to Hungarian, Volume Four: The Structure of Hungarian, 227-245. Szeged: JATE.

Pléh Csaba. 1995. On the dynamics of stigmatization and hypercorrection in a normatively oriented language community. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 111:31-45.

Váradi, Tamás. 1990. Ba vagy ban : problémavázlat.(Ba 'into' or ban 'in': an outline of the problem). In: Szabó G., (ed.) II. Dialektológiai Szimpozion. Veszprém: VEAB, pp. 143-155.

-- 1994. Hesitations between Inessive and Illative Forms in Hungarian (-ba and -ban ). Studies in Applied Linguistics 1:123-140. [Debrecen]

-- and Miklós Kontra. 1995. Degrees of Stigmatization: -t -final Verbs in Hungarian. In: ZDL-Beiheft 77: Verhandlungen des Internationalen Dialektologenkongresses Bamberg 1990. Band 4, 132-142. Wolfgang Viereck (Hrsg.), Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart.