Territorial differences in the structure of microtoponyms have hardly been studied in toponomastics, therefore the author of this study seeks an answer to the question of whether there exist boundaries marking off different phenomena, or onomastic dialects in toponymic systems.

The author analyses toponyms from functional-semantic and lexical-morphological perspectives. She also applies a system based on the Bray−Curtis matrix, whose most important aspect is that the degree of similarity between two settlements can only be between 0 and 1. The corpus of toponyms used by the author for her analyses contains more than 12,000 data.

The effect of geographical conditions, migration and foreign language environment on onomatosystems, followed by her sketching up onomastic dialect areas within a county with the help of the matrix-based method.

The author emphasizes the role of the geographical factor in examining the toponymic systems of the three different regions, furthermore she makes a comparative analysis of the settlements situated in a more homogeneous territory. Apart from the significant lexical and morphological differences between them it has also been found that the spread of toponymic structures is hindered by mountains and rivers. For instance, in the area beyond the river Rába in Western Hungary name users employ an anthroponym + geographical common word construction (Simon-tag < Simon anthroponym + tag ‘territory within ridge’), whereas at this side of the river the following structure occurs: common word (which denotes a person) + geographical common word (Tanító-földek < tanító ‘appellative meaning a person who teaches’ + földek ‘plots of land’).

In analyzing the effects of migration, the author examines the onomastic corpus of settlements where Hungarians from beyond the border were settled. Significant differences have been found in features of markedness/unmarkedness. Primordial inhabitants use unmarked toponym structures (Rác-gödör < rác ‘Serbian’+ gödör ‘hole’), whereas “newcomers” new area prefer a marked structure based on their own name-giving habits (Kerekes-dűlő+je < Kerekes anthroponym + dűlő ‘ridge’ + -je possessive suffix).

Name-giving patterns in different languages have also influenced the traditions of naming toponyms. at the end of her analysis the author comes to the conclusion, that name systems influence one another mainly each other mostly at the lexical level, morphological interference is less common.

Finally, the author compares the system of toponyms of settlements in one county with the help of a matrix-based method. The result drawn from this comparison is that there are four main onomastic dialect areas are East-West striped.