Onomastica Uralica
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Edited by TERHI AINIALA EMILIA ALDRIN ERZSÉBET GYŐRFFY Debrecen–Helsinki 2018 Onomastica Uralica President of the editorial board István Hoffmann, Debrecen Co-president of the editorial board Terhi Ainiala, Helsinki Editorial board Tatyana Dmitrieva, Yekaterinburg Sándor Maticsák, Debrecen Kaisa Rautio Helander, Irma Mullonen, Petrozavodsk Guovdageaidnu Aleksej Musanov, Syktyvkar Marja Kallasmaa, Tallinn Peeter Päll, Tallinn Nina Kazaeva, Saransk Janne Saarikivi, Helsinki Lyudmila Kirillova, Izhevsk Valéria Tóth, Debrecen Technical editor Edit Marosi Cover design and typography József Varga The volume was published under the auspices of the Research Group on Hungarian Language History and Toponomastics (University of Debrecen– Hungarian Academy of Sciences). It was supported by the International Council of Onomastic Sciences as well as the University of Debrecen. The papers of the volume were peer-reviewed by Terhi Ainiala, Emilia Aldrin, Katarzyna Aleksiejuk, Andrea Bölcskei, Ellen Bramwell, Linnea Gustafsson, Erzsébet Győrffy, Katharina Leibring, Antje Lobin, Maria Löfdahl, Staffan Nyström, Ritva Liisa Pitkänen, Rita Póczos, Guy Puzey, Katalin Reszegi, Elke Ronnenberger-Sibold, Minna Saarelma-Paukkala, Paula Sjöblom, Elwys De Stefani, Boglárka Straszer. The studies are to be found on the following website http://mnytud.arts.unideb.hu/onomural/ ISSN 1586-3719 (Print), ISSN 2061-0661 (Online) ISBN 978-963-318-660-2 Published by Debrecen University Press, a member of the Hungarian Publishers’ and Booksellers’ Association established in 1975. Managing Publisher: Gyöngyi Karácsony, Director General Printed by Kapitális Nyomdaipari és Kereskedelmi Bt. Contents ERZSÉBET GYŐRFFY On the Characteristics of Toponymic Communities ............................... 5 Katalin E. NAGY Studies onToponymic Knowledge in Hajdú-Bihar County .................... 19 MAGDOLNA NEMES Where do you live? – children talking about their surroundings ........... 29 Daiana FElEcan–alina BuGhEșiu Artifex ludi, or On the Game of Naming. Form and Meaning in the Act of Giving Names to Toys ....................................................... 43 VÄINÖ SYRJÄLÄ Names in Teenagers’ Linguistic Landscapes ......................................... 59 Emilia alDRin–linnEa GuSTaFSSon Teenagers’ inclusion and exclusion in their everyday onomastic environments ........................................................................ 69 VESlaVa SiDaRaVičiEnė Multilingualism and Unofficial Urban Place Names of Vilnius in the Languages of Lithuanian and Polish Youth ................................. 85 TatYANA PETROVNA SOKOLOva Naming Examination of Foreign-sounding Urbanonyms ...................... 97 ILIA BARANOV Who wants to live forever: Survival analysis in names research .......... 111 Paula SjöBlom–ulla hakala Toponyms and place heritage as sources of place brand value .............. 137 Katalin RESZEGI Mental Aspects of Proper Names ........................................................... 149 liDia BEckER Folk onymic discourses about personal names on the web ................... 169 jaRomíR kRško–alEna ZáBoRSká Onymic Space versus Social Space ....................................................... 185 ANGELIKA BERGIEN ‘Name and Shame’ strategies in a socio-onomastic perspective ........... 201 Contents 4 YolanDa GuillERmina lóPEZ FRanco Une enquête socioanthroponymique finiséculaire : la perception des prénoms dans huit communes de l’Hérault, France, en 1995. Une méthodologie toujours en vigueur ................................................. 209 linnEa GuSTaFSSon Modern Nicknames in Sweden ............................................................... 229 ANNA TSEPKOva Pragmatic and Motivational Peculiarities of Contemporary Russian Nicknames (case study: Novosibirsk school, college, university contexts) ................................................................................. 243 juDiT kEcSkÉS Names Moving Across the Borders: Onomastic Tasks Facilitating Social Integration ................................... 263 anikó SZiláGYi-kóSa Zur Übersetzung von nomina propria in literarischen Werken. Eine Fallstudie Ungarisch–Deutsch ........................................................ 279 juSTYna B. WalkoWiak Personal Name Policies in Europe in the Context of Globalization .......................................................................................... 295 MARIANN SLÍZ The legal deficiency of publishing calendars and the problems caused by calendars and dictionaries of given names based on lay ideas in Hungary ............................................................... 309 LASSE HÄMÄLÄINEN Level Names in an Online Minigolf Game ............................................. 317 Authors of the Volume ................................................................................ 331 Erzsébet Győrffy On the Characteristics of Toponymic Communities* 1. Definitions of the term “onomastic community” 1.1. In order to define the term “onomastic community”, it is best first to provide a brief overview of which properties sociolinguists have previously emphasized when defining the concept of “linguistic communities”. As early as the 1970s, GumPERZ claimed that linguistic communities may consist of small groups bound together by face-to-face contact or they may cover large regions, depending on the level of abstraction we wish to achieve, and these groups are characterized by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs. In other words, their functioning is characterized by a certain kind of adherence to norms (1971). chomSkY excluded heterogeneity as a property of ideal speaker-listener communities, as, according to his theory, linguistic competence is homogeneously distributed amongst individual speaker-listeners (cf. 1965). LABOV developed the “speech community” concept simultaneously using these two views; he integrated chomSkY’s thought on structural homogeneity, while also putting an emphasis on the role of GumPERZ’s shared norms (1972). LABOV’s and chomSkY’s ideas, while they eventually exerted a decisive effect on sociolinguistics, have also been subjected to a number of criticisms. The most significant objection has been raised against homogeneity. Additionally, for large speech communities (such as a complete linguistic community), the criterion of daily interaction has also been deemed unfulfillable. Both chomSkY and LABOV evaded the possibility of individual differences, while later research has shown context and situation to have a strong influence on the choice of linguistic elements, indeed, stronger than gender, age, social class, etc. HYMES has also called attention to the need to differentiate between full members of a speech community and mere participants (1974). BRoWn and lEWiSon have also pointed out that any particular individual can be a member of several speech communities (1979). Faced with the difficulties of defining the term, some have suggested simply avoiding it altogether (see e.g. DuRanTi 1997), while others have asserted the ad-hoc status of speech communities (see e.g. WaRDhauGh 2002). 1.2. With activity in socio-onomastic research having increased during recent years, the term “onomastic communities” has also gained the centre of attention. * The research for this essay was supported by the ÚNKP-17-4 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities. Erzsébet Győrffy 6 Several researchers have made attempts to grasp its essence, these attempts, however, either revealed slightly outdated sociological views (since lifestyles have undergone a significant change during the last few decades: traditional farming has declined, digital maps have emerged, passenger transport has intensified, mobility has generally increased, etc.) or investigated the term without empirical data, i.e. results deduced from actual name usage. When discussing his multiple level toponym typology models, iSTVán hoFFmann touches upon these socio-onomastics issues, even though he doesn’t treat them as an aspect in their own right. Mostly, researchers take away a single conclusion from his brief description of onomastic communities, namely, that hoFFmann considers settlements to be the natural units of toponomastics. This definition, however, has several elements worth deeper elaboration: “Onomastic communities, generally consisting of the inhabitants of a particular village or smaller city, are frameworks within which new names are formed, partly dictated by the system, partly driven by a communicative need. Names formed by members of the community can be taken into usage, and thereby be accepted and canonized only by a social environment where knowledge on the material and intellectual surroundings is mainly uniform, while linguistic differences, as well as differences in toponymic knowledge, are minimal. The concept of an onomastic community is represented the best by the population of a relatively small settlement.” (1993/2007: 39). Thus, the initial presumption could be hoFFmann’s thought (or intuitive comment) that onomastic communities consist of name-users with similar toponymic knowledge. It should also be noted, however, that when discussing his system of toponyms, hoFFmann, beyond the definition above, also calls attention to degrees of scale – that is, the scope of investigation may cover the entire Hungarian toponymicon, or just the onomastic corpus of a single regional unit (settlement, district, county). However, he considers these to be artificial units (1993/2007: 39). Nearly