The Onymic System in the Social Space

French sociologist Pierre Félix Bourdieu (1930–2002) defined the social space, which is created by a person living in it, as “a structure of differentiated social positions, each of which is defined by its position within the social field that an individual takes in the process of participation on a certain type of capital.

The social space consists of two axes – vertical and horizontal. At the vertical axis one’s position is based on the total disposable capital. At the horizontal axis, one’s position is based on the relation between the economic capital and the cultural capital” (M^ALINA 2009: 3273). “Various social positions and relationships coexist in the social space. It has a relational character; social relationships are not, however, determined by space. Quite the opposite – they create and modify space” (M^ALINA 2009: 3273). One of the social system’s constituents is linguistic communication, and thus the sphere of proper names as well. Based on these facts, we may study how the onymic system functions in communication from the viewpoint of the social space and its complex social relationships. In other words, we may study the choice of a specific form of a proper name based on an individual’s social status, social group and so on – one may choose to use a nickname instead of a birth name, a hypocoristic name instead of an official name, an unofficial toponym instead of an official toponym (see also A^INIALA 2010, D^AVID–m^ácha 2012).

The onymic space is defined by V. BlanáR as “a sum of proper names used in the language of a certain nation in order to name real, hypothetical, and fantastic objects” (BlanáR 1996: 25). Social relations among members of a society (or smaller social groups) and the position of an individual within these groups significantly influence the form of proper names used in communication.

An individual’s social position within a social group is defined by their status and role (košTialoVá 2009: 98). Overall, status⁴ refers to the social position of an individual in a social group, which he or she acquires when entering the group. The individual’s status is perceived via appreciation from other members of the social group in the form of positive choices, privileges, and benefits. Status may be ascribed – it is given to a person regardless of their will (e.g. based on

4 American anthropologist Ralph Linton (1893–1953), the author of terms status and role, characterized status as “one’s position in a certain type of society, a set of rights, privileges, duties, obligations, and expectations” (in košTialoVá 2009: 98). In this article, we use both terms in accordance with his definitions.

their age, gender, ethnicity), and sometimes it is based on social circumstances, mainly heritage. Another type of status is achieved status, which the individual may influence (e.g. through work and education). A certain level of education defines our status at work – as a result we may derive another type of status, namely socioeconomic status (e.g. monthly income, company car). Naturally, one has a different status within their family (different in relation to their parents, different in relation to their children), their group of friends and so on.

Role is a dynamic aspect of status because it is performed, played. Role is a group of certain obligations, restrictions, prescribed behaviour, as well as privileges. From the moment we come into this world, we learn to play various roles based on situations we find ourselves in as part of the socialization process (see for example košTialoVá 2009: 98–100, MALINA 2009: 3909).

Besides various appellative expressions, we choose different forms of proper names in ordinary communication based on the characteristics of the communication situation – in other words, our choice of proper names is affected by the situational variability of language. According to D. SlančoVá

(SlančoVá–SlančoVá 2012: 178), the character of the social situation makes us prefer particular language units; from an onomastic point of view, this applies to use of various types and forms of proper names. The communication situation is influenced not only by social stratification but also by social variability, i.e.

the composition of social groups and strata which participate in communication.

Therefore, it is an intersection of the social space and the onymic space.

The conception of how proper names function in communication and the selection of particular forms of a name, which is influenced by the social position of an individual and their social relationships within the social group, arise from the theory of the onymic register, which comprises the onymic component of the register of a social group (as part of the collective consciousness or so-called social memory) and that of each member of this group (as part of the individual consciousness – individual memory) (K^RšKo 2016: 101). We characterize the onymic register as a group of onymic (linguistic) and extralinguistic units used in certain communication spheres and communication situations that are determined by social, communication, macro-social, and micro-social register norms (K^RšKo 2016: 25).

The conception of the onymic register is based on the former reflections on the existence of so-called social or microsocial toponyms (KRšKo 1998)⁵

5 The author of the term microsocial toponym is J. Krško who used it at the beginning of his research activities. Later, he replaced it with the term social toponym. Such toponyms are used within a fairly closed microsociety (e.g. hunters, fishermen, families) and these names are known only to members of the group. This term corresponds with T. Ainiala’s slang toponym, Pablé’s mental onomasticon, David’s unofficial (or “living”) toponym etc.

188 Jaromír Krško–Alena Záborská and it corresponds to similar reflections on the existence of so-called mental onomastics (see P^ABLé 2010) and the functioning of unofficial toponymy (D^AVID–m^ácha 2014, D^AVID 2015). When thinking about using various linguistic and extralinguistic units in specific communication spheres and communication situations, one must consider the position of an individual and the position of a social group. Moreover, it is necessary to distinguish the anthroponymic and toponymic components of the onymic register. In the anthroponymic register, complex social relationships influenced by social status, role, and other factors among communication participants (i.e. micro-social register components) are more evident than in the toponymic one. Social perception of toponymic space differs from the perception of anthroponymic space, particularly in its emotional and pragmatic aspects in communication – one does not experience social relations with nature (i.e. objects in nature), and the emotional connection one has with a specific place arises from the social relationships one has with a particular group of people (family members, friends, a town’s inhabitants etc.). Expressivity of the toponymic space may be reflected in the linguistic form of a toponym and its motivation.⁶ In both anthroponymic and toponymic registers, we distinguish the anthroponymic register of an individual, the anthroponymic register of a group, the toponymic register of an individual, and the toponymic register of a group.

The onymic register may be classified as follows:

6 This may be demonstrated in such toponyms as Peklo and Žobráčka. The literal translation of the former is ‘hell’ as this toponym refers to an unpleasant place; the meaning of the latter is

‘beggar woman’ and refers to a weakly flowing spring (KRšKo 2006).