Frame approach to motivation of proper nouns
Abstract
The author argues for frame approach to the analysis of proper names. It relies on the action-based conception of language, according to which meaning of words is formed in communication on the ground of subjective representations of entities of objective reality. Within this approach, both linguistic and encyclopedic knowledge are taken under account. Therefore, it is important to consider all set of perceptions and ideas an individual has about a referent. The nominator selects a name based on a specific motivation that sometimes remains vague for a recipient. 'Internal form' of the word relies on a range of different features that the nominator ascribes to a respective object. Originally, proper nouns also have a transparent motivation, which is clear for a nominator. This motivation depicts relevant features of an object of nomination. From perspective of this theoretical model, the author has analyzed motivation of Ukrainian business names that allowed defining the structure of the business activity frame that is activated in the process of companies and organizations naming. The main slots of this frame include 1) object of an activity;
2) recipient of an activity, i.e. a potential client or a partner; 3) addresser, i.e. an actor, an agent who produces something or delivers services; 4) place of activity in a broad sense, including type of premises and geographical location; 5) organizational form. There are additional slots of the frame that are integrated into slots of an addresser and a recipient – 6) evaluation and values (pragma-axiological motivation), and 7) individual and collective symbols (symbolical motivation). The last two slots are based on an intensional meaning of motivators. The frame highlights stereotype understanding of the situation of interpersonal interaction in public and economic sphere.
Downloads
References
Bart R. (1975). Osnovy semiologii. Strukturalizm: «za» i «protiv». Moskva: Progress. S 114–163.
Bojko N. A. (2017). Otrazhenie prostranstvennyh otnoshenij v slavyanskoj ojkonimii. Svit movy` – svit u movi. Materialy` IV mizhnar. nauk. konferenciyi, m. Ky`yiv, 26-27 zhovt. Ky`yiv. S. 23–26.
Dejk T. A. van (2000). Yazyk. Poznanie. Kommunikaciya. Blagoveshchensk: BGK im. I. A. Boduena de Kurtene. 308 s.
Yermolenko S.S. (2012). Lingovsemioty`ka u poststrukturalisty`chnij parady`gmi. Akademik Oleksandr Savy`ch Mel`ny`chuk i suchasne movoznavstvo. Zb. nauk. pracz`. Ky`yiv: Vy`davny`chy`j dim Dmy`tra Burago. S. 149–156.
Ingarden R. (1962). Issledovanie po estetike. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Inostrannoj literatury. 570 s.
Kolesov, V. V. (2004). Soderzhatel’nye formy slova v ponimanii A. A. Potebni O. O. Potebnya j aktual`ni py`tannya movy` ta kul`tury`. Zb. nauk. pracz` Ky`yiv: Vy`d. dim Dmy`tra Burago. S. 13–24.
Krasnyh V. (2003). «Svoj» sredi «chuzhih»: mif ili real’nost’? Moskva: Gnozis. 375 s.
Lakoff Dzh. (1981). Lingvisticheskie geshtal’ty. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Vyp. Leksicheskaya semantika. Moskva: Progress. S. 350–368.
Lopatin V.V. (2007). Mnogogrannoe russkoe slovo. Izbrannye stat’i po russkomu yazyku. Moskva: Azbukovnik. 743 s.
Potebnya A. A. (1999). Psihologiya poeticheskogo i prozaicheskogo myshleniya. Polnoe sobranie trudov: Mysl’ i yazyk. Moskva: Labirint. S. 199–236.
Sny`tko O. S. (2004). Psy`xolingvisty`chni ideyi O.O.Potebni i suchasna nauka. O. O.Potebnya j aktual`ni py`tannya movy` ta kul`tury`. Zb. nauk. pracz`. Ky`yiv: Vy`davny`chy`j dim Dmy`tra Burago. S. 89–93.
Superanskaya A. V., Staltmane V. E., Podol’skaya N. V., Sultanov A. H. (2007). Teoriya i metodika onomasticheskih issledovanij. Moskva: LKI. 256 s.
Uluhanov I.S. (2007). Slovoobrazovatel’naya semantika v russkom yazyke i principy yeyo opisaniya. Moskva: LKI. 254 s.
Fillmor Ch. (1981). Delo o padazhe. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Vyp. 10. Leksicheskaya semantika. Moskva: Progress. S. 369–495.
Xary`tonova T.A. (2004). O. O. Potebnya i rozvy`tok kognity`vnoyi parady`gmy` v suchasnomu movoznavstvi. O. O. Potebnya j aktual`ni py`tannya movy` ta kul`tury`. Zb. nauk. pracz`. Ky`yiv: Vy`davny`chy`j dim Dmy`tra Burago. S. 94–97.
Shtajn K. E., Petrenko D. I. (2015). A. A. Potebnya: dialog vo vremeni. Stavropol’ – Rostov-na-Donu: Stavropol’skij gos. ped. in-t. 639 s.
Fillmore Ch. J. (1982). Semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Selected Papers from SICOL-198, Seoul. P. 111–137.
Нussar A. (2007). New Estonian names a hundred years ago. Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Onomastic Sciences. Uppsala, 19-24 August 2002. Uppsala. P. 143–150.
Jordan P. (2012). Place names as ingredients of space-related identity. Names and Identities, Oslo Studies in Language. Vol 4 (2). P. 117–131. URL: https://journals.uio.no/osla/article/view/314 (дата звернення: 20.09.2020).
Kałużyńska I. (2007). Contemporary place-names consisting of personal names. Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Onomastic Sciences. Uppsala, 19-24 August 2002. Uppsala. P. 168–176.
Minsky M. (1974). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. Artificial Intelligence Memo No 306. URL: https://courses.media.mit.edu/2004spring/mas966/Minsky%201974%20Framework%20for%20knowledge.pdf (дата звернення: 20.09.2020).