Proper names in the light of theoretical onomastics

Abstract

A proper name is a vocabulary element of a particular language which also belongs to a respective onymic subsystem, thereby acquiring a binary character. Proper names are formed (as a secondary plan of a language) with the background of appellative vocabulary. However, in their formation and use in communication, not only are the rules of the appellative language code applied but also the rules specific to proper names. Two opposing but interrelated tendencies are typical of the position of proper names – a continuous interaction of proper names with other vocabulary and the whole language system and, simultaneously, a continuous polarisation of the category of proper names in relation to appellatives. The interaction of proper names with other vocabulary relates to the ongoing processes of onymisation (appellative % proprium) and apellativisation (proprium % appellative) with the openness of onymy (the social, historical, cultural as well as the political dimensions of proper names present a wide range of possibilities for, e. g. the adoption of exonyms) but, above all, it relates to the social needs of ordinary communication. The polarisation of proper names in relation to appellatives is, hence, conditioned by the special character of onymic nomination. From this binary interrelationship of proper names follows the binary status of the category nomen proprium, i. e. linguistic status and onomastic status. In the analysis of proper names and from the methodological standpoint in onomastics, I consider this to be fundamental. That is why, after the older characterisation of onomastics, I have extended the definition of the linguistic status of proper names as defined by Kuryłowicz (La position linguistique du nom propre, 1956) to linguistic and onomastic status (Blanár 1976, 1977 ). These terms will be discussed later.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.