Íslenzk tunga - 01.01.1961, Síða 82

80
HREINN BENEDIKTSSON
goal then was a normalization or standardization of the pronuncia-
tion.24 But in part, as we shall see later, these differences in methodo-
logy are undoubtedly due to the specific nature of the research
object itself, viz. the linguistic situation in Iceland.
Guðfinnsson’s methods of investigation were four:25 (1) The
reading test. A prepared text—narrative, or discontinuous passages—
is read by the informant, and the investigator notes down the pronun-
ciation. This method was most used. (2) The conversation test. In
conversations the investigator takes down the pronunciation or makes
mental notes of it in order to write it down later. (3) The method of
inquiry. The investigator puts direct questions, orally or in writing,
about pronunciation to his informants. (4) The writing test. Children
between seven and ten are made to write down a prepared text, with
short sentences, recited, e. g., by their teacher. This test was used, e.
g., in determining the nature of occlusives after s, which was sup-
posed to be shown by the children’s spelling, i. e. whether they, in-
stead of the normal sp, st, sk, wrote sb, sd, sg, Guðfinnsson discusses
the merits and drawbacks of each of these methods, the last of which,
especially, is somewhat surprising from the point of view of tradi-
tional dialectology. It is, e. g., not among the methods applied by
Stefán Einarsson in his studies in the late thirties.26
The material thus collected Guðfinnsson treats statistically for
each town and county (sýsla), with sub-divisions for each school-
24 Bj. Gufffinnsson, Breytingar á frambur&i og stajsetningu (Reykjavík
1947). This work contains much valuable information, based on the author’s
investigations, about the dialect differences which had not been treated iu tlie
main report (see reference in footnote 22).
25 Mállýzkur, pp. 100—150.
26 “Icelandic Dialect Studies_p. 539. Later, however, from the same kind
of data, viz. the results of a general examination in orthography in Icelandic
elementary schools held in 1934 (see the report Landspróf vorið 1934 (Fræðslu-
málaskrifstofan. Skýrslur II; Reykjavík 1935)), Einarsson drew far-reaching
conclusions about linguistic changes now in progress in Icelandic (“Málbreyt-
ingar,” Menntamál IX (1936), pp. 192—197). Guðfinnsson examined these con-
clusions, and found thcm ‘inadmissible—and wrong’ (Mállýzkur, pp. 109—115).