Zoomorphic Pattern in Collective Nicknames among the Residents of the Russian North
The paper studies collective nicknames of the residents of the Russian North (Arkhangelsk and Vologda regions) to describe a productive zoomorphic naming pattern. The research is based on findings of the Toponymic Expedition of the Ural Federal University which includes materials from field trips to...
| Published in: | Вопросы Ономастики |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | Russian |
| Published: |
Izdatelstvo Uralskogo Universiteta
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2020.17.1.002 https://doaj.org/article/d2a34e987a0e451b876e0ff4e5d41fbd |
| Summary: | The paper studies collective nicknames of the residents of the Russian North (Arkhangelsk and Vologda regions) to describe a productive zoomorphic naming pattern. The research is based on findings of the Toponymic Expedition of the Ural Federal University which includes materials from field trips to the Russian North (1960–2019) as well as data published in dictionaries and monographs. The paper identifies lexical composition of the pattern, describes the geography of collective nicknames, and provides analysis of the material in terms of motivation, onomasiology, and language contacts. In some cases, collective nicknames are considered against the background of other types of nickname anthroponymy: family and individual nicknames. The analyzed body of nicknames includes both units formed from all-Russian vocabulary such as vorony, ershi, zaitsy, kuliki, etc., and less common names based on dialectal names of animals, birds, fish and insects (revyaki, svizi, sivkuny, pepyaki). The choice of animal species used in nicknames (in decreasing order: birds, fish, wild animals, pets, insects, amphibians) as well as substantial quantitative differences between Arkhangelsk and Vologda region (more than 200 units vs 88) are attributable to landscape features (forest and water) and occupations of the population (hunting, fishing). Characterological motivations, widely used in individual nickname anthroponymy, are relatively rare among zoomorphic collective nicknames. The prevalence of some thematic and motivational categories (especially “birds”) in the nicknames is probably due to the influence of substrate Finno-Ugric languages. |
|---|