This diatopic factor is addressed in
Montoya (1986), a study of the different variables recorded in the trial transcripts from
the texts from three districts in the Valencian Land: the Comtat dElda, the Vall de
Novelda and the Horta dOriola. These are three counties situated on a north-south
axis, thus enabling Montoya to trace Spanish (language) influence spreading northwards,
for example in the verbal form ha-hi or the lexical elements llevar and sacar.
On the other hand, when the innovations come from the main trunk of development, these
expand from north to south, as happened with the preposition ab>en and the
imperfect subjunctive ending às>ara. We find this same factor dealt with in Mas
(1994) in the variational analysis of ecclesiastic documents of the modern era in Elx
(Elche) compared with the same type of documents from Barcelona the hypothetical
medieval reference point and from Valencia the source of linguistic influence
from the 16th century onward. In this way, we can observe the way in which the
monophonemic variant of the prepalatal voiceless fricative phoneme // represented graphically by an "x" occurs
with a higher probability of realisation in the documentation from Barcelona, at 0.703,
followed by the Elx data, at 0.674, while the Valencia material scores 0.170.
The diachronic factor
reasons, historical documents are the best suited for the analysis of this factor. Even
so, however, we need to be clear that the conditions for analysis of this factor are
determined by the diachronic nature of the documents under study -that is to say, the date
of each document will only give us an analysis in real time. Put another way, the
possibility of an analysis in apparent time will only be possible if we find historical
documentation written by various authors from different generations.
This factor is
also considered in the two publications mentioned in the previous section. Firstly,
Montoya (1986) divides documentation, mainly dating from the seventeenth century, into two
halves: that which predates 1650 and that which post-dates it. In this wise Montoya is
able to corroborate the appearance in the second half of the century of the variant sacar
and the increase of the variant llevar over time. Secondly, Mas (1994) similarly
analyses this factor using church documents that go from 1565 to 1740. He divides this
(longer) period into three stages: the first extends from 1565, when the documentation
began on the instance of the Council of Trent, until 1609, with the expulsion of the moors
and the possible influx of many Spanish clergy. The second stage extends to 1707, a
fateful year in Valencian history, and the third extends to 1740, the last year in which
church documentation was written in Catalan. With the data divided into these three
stages, we can see the evolution of certain variants such as the grapheme "x"
for the prepalatal voiceless fricative, as it gives way over time to the competing
grapheme variant "ix" as a result of the influence of Valencian, thus, it
evolves from 0.934 to 0.510 and finally 0.063. A similar instance is the reinforced form
of the definite article el, which increases on a continuum which goes from an
initial 0.345, to 0.470 and finally to 0.681.
3.3.3 The diastratic factor
This factor has
not yet been studied in any analysis of historical sociolinguistics. The nature of the
documents, on the one hand, and the few studies carried out in this conceptual area, on
the other, have impeded the study of the factor in this way. Yet analysis would be
perfectly possible, for example using documents written by a given writer and drawing
conclusions on the basis of the specific genre in question, or by comparing the output
from writers from different social classes, such as clerks, notaries (commissioners for
oaths) and chancellors.
The diaphasic factor
preceding factor, this is far and away the element that has received the most research
attention in this discipline. This as a result of the ease with which different styles and
registers can be distinguished in historical written data. Right at the beginnings of this
branch of sociolinguistics, Romaine (1982) already distinguished verse and prose text
types, and within the latter she further distinguished national legal prose, local legal
prose, literary prose and letter writing. Subsequently, Gimeno (1985), working with
medieval documents from an epistolary in Alacant and one in Oriola, distinguished two
types of legal documents, the originals and the transferred texts, as well as two types of
contextual styles: chancery and municipal. In Catalan, Miralles (1980) defined the
following styles in a study of the municipal archives of Montuïri and the legal
proceedings: the legal-chancery style, epistolary- chancery style, narrative style, and
colloquial style. Similarly working with legal proceedings but this time in Oriola and
Elda in the Modern period, Montoya (1986) distinguishes four styles: style A is found in
texts which contain the written declarations of the participants, style B relates to these
same declarations collected by scribes, style C relates to judges' summing up and, lastly,
style D relates to the stylised parts of the document. The separating out of registers in
this way is also found in Mas (1994), a study of ecclesiastic documents from Elx which are
then compared with the text of the Elx Mystery play, with the Council's administrative
documents and with the colloquial style recorded in court proceedings. Lastly, there is
Mas (2002), a study on stylistic variation in the different versions of the consueta of
the Festa dElx / The Elx Mystery play. These styles are: firstly, the words
in verse sung during the Assumption; secondly, the text of the scenographic details and,
thirdly, the text in spontaneous style that we find in the historical appendices included
in certain copies of the consueta.
provides us with a process of tracking linguistic change in the form of historical
sociolinguistics, that is to say, the variationist analysis of written documents in
diachronic terms. It is true that this area of sociolinguistics lacks a theoretical basis
of its own, and exists as a subdivision of variationism, one might almost say an appendix.
Notwithstanding, and despite the methodological drawbacks that rightly or wrongly have
been assigned to it, plus the scant attention it has received from the scientific
community, the efficacy of this model is not any the less for all that. It arose as a
viable alternative within historical linguistics, for the study and description of
language change in progress, and as an analytical process it has not been surpassed or
replaced as yet by any other.
This state of
affairs, together with the lack of publication on its theory and methodology to date, and
the severe criticism from some sectors in the face of the innovations involved in
introducing a new empirical model in the methodology of variationism and which at
times have even come from within sociolinguistics itself (Mas and Montoya, 2003), could
well be the cause behind the slight repercussion that this area has had -both in the field
of linguistic endeavour generally, and that of Catalan linguistics in particular. In our
case, for example, we only have a tiny group at the University of Alacant formed by
B. Montoya and present writer. Under the tutelage of Francisco Gimeno, one of the
precursors of historical sociolinguistics in the Spanish state, they have undertaken the
few studies that we currently have for our language.
In summary: as
formulated by Labov, historical sociolinguistics, with all its drawbacks, enables to
understand contemporary language through the diachronic study of the language of earlier
times. Also, it enables to reconstruct earlier stages of the language by drawing on
analysis of the language of today. In short, then, it provides us with one more string to
our bow, an approach to linguistic research from coordinates that are still totally
applicable within a theoretical and epistemological framework based on the combined
analysis of linguistic and social factors.
GARCÍA, F. Fundamentos
críticos de sociolingüística, Universidad de Almería, [Almeria] (1999).
"Hacia una sociolinguistics histórica", Estudios Lingüísticos de la
Universidad de Alicante. [Alacant] (1983), no. 1, p. 181-226.
"De sociolinguística histórica: Tradición grafemática y variable
fonològica", BAPLE [San Juan] (1983b), 11, 2, p. 71-86.
GIMENO, F. Dialectología
y sociolingüística españolas, UA, [Alacant] (1991).
GIMENO, F. Sociolingüística
històrica (siglos X-XII), Visor Libros/UA, [Madrid] (1995).
LABOV, W. Modelos
sociolingüísticos, Ed. Cátedra, [Madrid] (1983).
"Producció escrita i producció oral", Caplletra-6, [Barcelona] (1989),
MAS, A. La
substitució lingüística del català (Ladministració eclesiàstica dElx en
ledat moderna), Diputació dAlacant, [Alcoi] (1994).
MAS, A. La
variació lingüística en la consueta de la Festa dElx, Ed. Denes, [València]
MAS, A and
MONTOYA, B. "Sociolingüística de la variació: estat de la qüestió", Caplletra-27,
"Sobre lús lingüístic en les viles medievals mallorquines. Els llibres de
Cort Reial", Actes del V Col·loqui de lAILLC, [Barcelona] (1980), p.
MONTOYA, B, Variació
i desplaçament de llengües a Elda i Oriola durant l'edat moderna, Institut d'Estudis
Juan Gil-Albert, [Alacant] (1986).
MONTOYA, B. Els
alacantins catalanoparlants. Una generació interrompuda. IEC, [Barcelona] (2000).
Principios de sociolingüística y sociología del lenguaje, Ed. Ariel, [Barcelona]
C. Sociolingüística. Teoría y análisis, Ed. Alhambra, [Madrid] (1988).
TURELL, M. La
sociolingüística de la variació, PPU, [Barcelona] (1995).
VIAPLANA, J. Dialectologia,
Col. Biblioteca Lingüística Catalana, UV, [València] (1996).
LABOV, W. and HERZOG, M. I. "Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language
Change", LEHMAN, W. P., and Y. MALKIEL (ed.), Italian translation (2001).
University of Alacant