The Toponymic Register

Social space, complex interpersonal relationships, and communication within small social groups influence toponymy, too. Whereas in anthroponymy social relations among users of proper names are expressed directly and primarily, in toponymy social relations are not expressed directly, as they are secondary social relations – mainly through a specific person (owner of the toponymic object) or a place where one lives or lived (relationships with one’s ancestors form a relation to their birthplace). An emotional attachment to a toponymic object may be expressed via memories, too – places where one spent one’s youth, important events occurred and so on. These memories are, however, associated with people with whom they were formed. B. H^ELLELAND (2012) sees toponyms as important social signals which indicate the affiliation of individuals with a specific society. “Place names are social signals of belonging to a group, and the more names that are shared, the stronger the bonds are within the group. […] Most people would agree that it is fundamental for the wellbeing of individuals to be familiar with places and place names in their surroundings in the same way as it means a lot to have close relationships to one’s family and neighbours. To know the places and the names of the places in one’s neighbourhood is part of the spirit of community” (H^ELLELAND 2012:

96).

Even though toponymy refers to static objects, it is a very dynamic part of any language. We may attribute this dynamicity to that of social relations – toponymy lives and changes along with human societies. J. D^AVID and P.

m^ácha (2012: 30) move the adjective unofficial, first used by V. BlanáR, from anthroponymy to toponymy, as they deem it appropriate to distinguish written names (i.e. fixed names found in documents, such as on maps, in chronicles etc.) from unofficial names (which are being studied by new field research). In the introduction of his monograph entitled Paměť města – názvy míst. Ostrava, J. DAVID (2012: 7) claims that besides the official standardized street names, there are unofficial non-standardized place names in every city, which help its inhabitants in everyday orientation. Thus, the nomenclature of every city consists of names well known to its inhabitants as well as local names known

192 Jaromír Krško–Alena Záborská only to students of a particular school, for example, or the inhabitants of a certain building or street and so on.

When considering the existence of social toponyms, it is necessary to point out that they are not a specific type of toponyms but rather a stable part of toponymy – social toponyms have all the attributes of toponyms. However, they are unofficial names referring to onymic objects. The entire toponymic set consists of both official and unofficial toponyms. The way social toponyms are perceived and interpreted is related to one’s view of how a proper name functions in the communication of a social group. In other words, social toponyms reflect how a particular social group perceives its social space. We may define social toponyms as “toponyms which were coined and are used in a fairly closed social group, have a low (or zero) communication potency towards outsiders, and refer to toponymic objects of the social space of a certain group during its existence” (K^RšKo 2016: 72).

Social toponyms comprise the toponymic register, which we further divide into two subregisters – that of the group and that of the individual. The toponymic register of a group consists of all the toponyms a certain social group uses in communication to refer to its important points of orientation. Research in Slovak toponymy has shown that we may distinguish several types of social groups based on various criteria. Based on region, there are, for example, social groups of neighbourhoods (a specific city district, the higher/lower area of a village, etc.), and we may consider the relationship of the social group of a village towards other villages or the whole region. The toponymy of such social groups may be defined as regional social toponyms. As already stated, these toponyms are used in social groups of specific neighbourhoods, but also within a municipality singled out from its surroundings. Use of this type of social toponyms indicates that these groups are fairly closed off from outsiders. In common practice, people’s choice of proper names is one of the criteria used to distinguish native (born and raised) inhabitants of a certain municipality or neighbourhood from those who have moved there (see also AINIALA 2009, V^uolTEEnaho–a^iniala 2009). When defining a group from the sociological and psychological points of view, many authors connect it mainly with a psychological bond and these social groups are identified and defined on the basis of an ‘us versus them’ polarity (košTialoVá 2009: 66).

Based on age, we may distinguish generational social toponyms, differentiating children and young adults’ social groups in particular. We may consider a social group of adults as well, but this is more complicated because these social toponyms may be contaminated by the toponymy of the municipality. A specific kind of age-based social toponymy is family social toponymy. Family social toponyms are traditionally associated with the area of a village where

the given family owns property. The coinage of this type of social toponym is usually motivated by an emotional relationship with the property as a symbol of inheritance or continuity of the family line, or by an emotional attachment to the acquirer of the property.¹³ Toponyms coined spontaneously on family trips and walks may be considered family social toponyms, as well. If they are used on a regular basis, they may later function as basic points of orientation – Otcova skrýša (‘father’s hiding place’), Pri Majkovom potoku (‘at Majko’s brook’) (K^RšKo 2014: 77). Onymic motivation of these names is based on mutual experience and connected with mutual family memories.

Other social groups may be distinguished based on hobbies and profession.

In the appellative lexicon, the criterion of profession determines the use of professionalisms,¹⁴ and in the onymic sphere we may likewise observe professional social toponyms. This group is represented by names that are or were used by people working in the countryside – farmers, herdsmen, forestry workers, coalmen, fishermen, hunters, as well as sportsmen (cyclists, tourists, rock climbers, boaters) etc.

Researchers have recently been focusing not only on the language of the city but also more specifically on urban toponymy. They have not studied standardization processes, urbanonym typology etc. but rather urban toponymy from the viewpoint of the orientation of city-dwellers, the coinage of new non-standardized names, and the perception of landmarks (see D^AVID 2012, 2015, D^AVID–m^ácha 2012). J. D^AVID (2015) claims that the coinage of urban toponymy results from the original urbanonyms found in the city centre being gradually overlapped by two other groups of toponyms – the original toponyms of communities which became part of the growing city and the unofficial toponymy. The third layer (i.e. the unofficial toponymy) is particularly interesting because, as asserted by J. DAVID (2015: 379), these names comprise a specific communication group as they blend with standardized names.

Names used within villages that later became part of cities are a matter of the past, whereas unofficial toponyms are truly alive. In this respect, J. D^AVID understands the term urbanonymy in a broader sense – not only names of streets and squares but also “names of restaurants and bars, hotels, theatres, cinemas, and museums, bus stops, pharmacies, hospitals, railway stations, and airports”

(D^AVID 2015: 379).

Like the anthroponymic register, the regional toponymic register enters communication in three forms – official, semi-official and private (unofficial).

The more objects we specify (and localize) in communication, the more diverse

13 For example, Mamine (‘mother’s’) referring to a field bought by one’s mother.

14 We understand professionalisms as language units referring to objects, actions, and phenomena characteristic for a certain professional (work) sphere (see FinDRa 2004: 29).

194 Jaromír Krško–Alena Záborská regional social toponyms we find in all forms of communication. Object specification within the social space of a particular social group results from the tendency to name smaller onymic objects (unlike a larger onymic object such as a street or a square). In communication, people use points of orientation known to the social group of locals. In Slovakia, this phenomenon was reflected in the past on notice boards of private companies, and in the present we may find it in written forms of advertisements – a company with the address Partizánska 89 in Banská Bystrica has a territorial localization stated in brackets – premises next the IVECO company; the address Skuteckého 1, Banská Bystrica is specified by the comment from the main post office towards courthouses.

The unofficial naming of the social space by social groups within cities, neighbourhoods or streets is a common phenomenon not bound to a specific language or region. Regional social toponyms also include unofficial names of public transport stops. Unofficial toponyms locals use have different motivations from the official names assigned to stops by public transport workers. Use of the unofficial toponymic register in communication with an outsider may lead to misunderstanding or communication interference – for example, a tourist in Olomouc who needs to get to the city centre and get off at a stop called Náměstí Republiky is told by locals to get off at a stop called U muzea, which is not found on any map.

An individual who does not belong to a regional social group (for example that of a city) uses the official toponyms as basic points of orientation within the unknown space. Since the official toponymy is found on maps, outsiders identify names found on maps with the actual image of the foreign social space.

They also look for and use objects found in their mental toponymic register (for example, retail chains which they know from their social space; well-known buildings familiar from newspapers, television, Internet). In communication including locals, i.e. members of the local social group (for example when asking for directions, establishing meeting points etc.), the onymic points of all the interlocutors’ respective toponymic registers must overlap. If the overlap does not occur, members of the local social group have to describe the surroundings of a given object until his or her communication partner (i.e. the outsider) identifies an object they know and can use as a landmark.

The analysis of social groups using their own specific toponymy helps us describe the toponymic registers of these societies. From the perspective of an individual, the situation in toponymy is similar to that in anthroponymy.

Everyone is a member of different social groups, whether in the past or the present. If we define the toponymic register of a social group as the set of all the toponyms the group uses in communication to refer to its important landmarks, we must analyse the character of the toponymic register of the

individual as well. If we determine that an individual belongs to various social groups in which they have different social positions, we can assume they know the toponymic register of the social groups to which they belong. Is the individual familiar with the entirety of these registers or only part of them?

The answer to this question lies in the character of one’s belonging to a group and one’s social position within the group – one might be a passive member in one group and thus not know the group’s entire toponymic register, whereas in a different group one might be a long-time active member and thus know the group’s entire register. Based on this analysis we may define the toponymic register of an individual as the sum of all parts of the toponymic registers of the groups to which the individual belongs and which he or she knows. The content of an individual’s toponymic register consists of all the toponyms he or she has known in his or her life. Since onymic registers are part of the register, they are dynamic – an individual may not use certain toponyms anymore (e.g.

if he or she is no longer a member of the original social group and its social space), some toponyms may be new to the register (the individual has found new places) etc.

5. Conclusion

The issue of how anthroponyms and toponyms function in the social space and communication points to the complex social relationships within groups as well as to the interconnection of these groups via individuals and their social positions. These factors strongly influence the choice of specific forms of proper names. Anthroponymy uncovers interpersonal social relationships in more detail, whereas toponymy uncovers the social interconnection between an individual and his or her surroundings, as well as the way he or she notices and perceives important onymic points as basic landmarks in the social onymic space.

Both anthroponyms and toponyms are parts of the onymic register. We may study the onymic register from the viewpoint of an individual or from the viewpoint of a whole social group. The anthroponymic register of a group consists of all the proper names used to refer to its members. These names are known to all members of the group and they exist while the group exists.

The anthroponymic register of an individual consists of all the anthroponyms and their forms, referring to all members of social groups to which a given individual belongs and whom he or she knows. The anthroponymic register of an individual consists of all the anthroponyms an individual has known in their lifetime – closest relatives, distant relatives, classmates, friends, and so on.

Complex interpersonal relationships and communication among people in small social groups influence toponymy, too. According to B. H^ELLELAND (2012), the

196 Jaromír Krško–Alena Záborská richer the toponymic register of a group, the stronger the social relationships within the group. The toponymic register consists of social toponyms and we distinguish the toponymic register of a group and the toponymic register of an individual. The toponymic register of a group represents a sum of all toponyms a particular social group uses in communication to refer to important points of orientation. We distinguish several types of social groups based on various criteria. Based on region, there are regional social groups (e.g. a social group of a specific city district, a social group of a town in contrast with neighboring towns or regions); toponyms of such groups may be called regional social toponyms. We may distinguish other social groups based on age of their members – mainly children and young adult’s social groups. In these social groups we may use the term generational social toponyms. A specific type of age-based social toponymy is family social toponymy. Other social groups may be distinguished based on hobbies and profession. In the appellative lexicon, the criterion of profession determines the use of professionalisms, and in the onymic sphere we may likewise observe professional social toponyms. This group consists of names used by people working in the countryside – farmers, herdsmen, forestry workers, coalmen, fishermen, hunters, and even sportsmen (cyclists, rock climbers, boaters, etc.).

Each of us becomes a member of various social groups throughout our lives.

If we define the toponymic register of a group as a set of all toponyms a social group uses to refer to important points of orientation and which are active in communication of its members, the toponymic register of an individual may be defined as a group of parts of toponymic registers of all the groups to which an individual belongs and which are known to him or her. The content of an individual’s toponymic register are all the toponyms he or she has known in his or her life.

The understanding of the issue of social anthroponyms and social toponyms corresponds with opinions of other onomasticians who work with mental onomasticon or mental onymy, slang toponymy or unofficial (‘living’) toponymy.

References

A^INIALA, T^ERHI 2009. Place Names in the Construction of Social Identities: The Uses of Names of Helsinki. In: a^hREnS, W^olFGanG–E^mBlETon, S^hEila– L^APIERRE, A^NDRé eds. Names in Lingual, Cultural and Multi-Ethnic Contact (Proceedings of the 23rd international congress of onomastic sciences (Toronto, August 17–22, 2008)). Toronto, York University. 67–75.

AINIALA, TERHI 2010. Use of slang toponyms in Helsinki. URL: https://www.

researchgate.net/publication/309406614_Use_of_slang_toponyms_in_

Helsinki?enrichId=rgreq-2dd0bca740b8cb5db523a0f511407a19-XXX&e nrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwOTQwNjYxNDtBUzo0MjA5NDcw MTk0ODUxODRAMTQ3NzM3Mjk5ODYzOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_

esc=publicationCoverPdf.

BlanáR, VincEnT 1996. Teória vlastného mena. Status, organizácia a fungovanie v spoločenskej komunikácii. [The Theory of a Proper Name.

Status, Organization, and Functioning in Social Communication.] Bratislava, Veda.

B^lanáR, V^incEnT 2009. Proper Names in the Light of Theoretical Onomastics.

Martin, Matica slovenská.

D^AVID, j^ARosLAV–m^ácha, P^řEmYSl 2012. Možnosti studia toponym ve vztahu ke krajině, prostoru a identitě. [Possibilities of Studying Toponyms in Connection with Country, Space, and Identity.] Acta onomastica 53: 28–45.

D^AVID, j^ARosLAV–m^ácha, P^řEmYSl 2014. Názvy míst. Paměť, identita, kulturní dědictví. [Place Names. Memory, Identity, Cultural Heritage.]

Brno, Filozofická fakulta OU.

DAVID, jARosLAV 2012. Paměť města – názvy míst. Ostrava. [Memory of the City – Place Names. Ostrava.] Ostrava, Ostravská univerzita v Ostravě.

D^AVID, j^ARosLAV 2015. Pestré vrstvy – stratifikace toponymie města. [Colorful Strata – Stratification of the City Toponymy.] In: V^alEnToVá, i^VETa ed.

19. slovenská onomastická konferencia (Bratislava 28. – 30. apríla 2014).

Bratislava, VEDA. 379–385.

F^inDRa, j^án 2004. Štylistika slovenčiny. [Stylistics of the Slovak Language.]

Martin, Osveta.

HELLELAND, BoToLV 2012. Place Names and Identities. In: HELLELAND, BoToLV–oRE, chRiSTian-Emil–WikSTRøm, SolVEiG eds. Names and Identities. Oslo Studies in Language. Oslo, University of Oslo. 95–116.

URL: http://www.journals.uio.no/osla.

k^ošTialoVá, K^ATARíNA 2009. Človek – profesia – rodina. Kapitoly z urbánnej etnológie. [Man – Profession – Family. Chapters from the Urban Ethnology.]

Banská Bystrica, Ústav vedy a výskumu UMB v Banskej Bystrici.

K^RšKo, j^ARoMíR 1998. Mikrosociálne toponymá. [Microsocial Toponyms.]

In: m^ajTán, m^ilan–Ž^iGo. P^AVoL eds. 13. Slovenská onomastická konferencia: Zborník referátov z 13. slovenskej onomastickej konferencie konanej v Modre-Piesku, 2.- 4. 10. 1997. Bratislava, Filozofická fakulta UK v Bratislave; Jazykovedný ústav Ľ. Štúra SAV. 115 –119.

KRšKo, jARoMíR 2006. Vyjadrenie kvalitatívno-kvantitatívnych vzťahov v toponymii pomocou expresivity a metafory. [Expressing Qualitative and Quantitative Relationships in Toponymy via Expressivity and Metaphor].

Slavica Slovaca 41/1: 61-68.

198 Jaromír Krško–Alena Záborská K^RšKo, j^ARoMíR 2014. Úvod do toponomastiky. [Introduction to

Toponomastics.] Banská Bystrica, Belianum.

K^RšKo, j^ARoMíR 2016. Všeobecnolingvistické aspekty onymie. (Z problematiky onymického komunikačného registra). [General Linguistic Aspects of Onymy. (About the Issue of the Onymic Register.)] Banská Bystrica, Belianum.

MALINA, jARosLAV et al. 2009. Antropologický slovník. [The Dictionary of Anthropology.] Brno, CERM.

P^ABLé, A^DRIAN 2010. Language, knowledge and reality: The integrationist on name variation. Language & Communication 30/2: 109–122.

S^lančoVá, D^ANIELA–S^lančoVá, T^ERézIA 2012. Komunikačný register ako alternatíva funkčného štýlu (na pozadí komunikácie v športe).

[Communication Register as an Alternative to Functional Language Style. (Sport Communication.)] In: čaRkić, miloSaV ed. STIL 11.

Beograd: Međunarodno udrženje „Stil“ – Pravoslavni bogoslovski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu. 177–187.

SlančoVá, DANIELA–SlančoVá, TERézIA 2014. Reč pohybu, autority a súdržnosti. Pragmatická analýza trénerského komunikačného registra v komunikácii s hráčmi kolektívnych loptových hier staršieho školského veku. [Language of Movement, Authority, and Unity. Pragmatic Analysis of Coach Register in Communication with Young Players of Collective Ball Games.] Prešov, Filozofická fakulta Prešovskej univerzity.

V^uolTEEnaho, j^ani–A^INIALA, T^ERHI 2009. Slang Toponyms in Early Twentieth Century Helsinki. In: ahREnS, WolFGanG–EmBlETon, ShEila– LAPIERRE, ANDRé eds. Names in Lingual, Cultural and Multi-Ethnic Contact. Proceedings of the 23rd international congress of onomastic sciences (Toronto, August 17–22, 2008). Toronto, York University. 1030–

1035.

Abstract

In this paper, we present the conception of the social perception of proper names and their functioning in fairly closed social groups through the prism of

In this paper, we present the conception of the social perception of proper names and their functioning in fairly closed social groups through the prism of

In document TERHI AINIALAEMILIA ALDRINERZSÉBET GYŐRFFY (Pldal 191-200)