Toponymic worldview: Gender-specific characteristics in nomination of space
https://doi.org/10.26907/2541-7738.2025.5-6.143-154
Abstract
The toponymic worldview, as a component of the broader linguistic worldview, most clearly demonstrates how humans perceive the surrounding space. It settles upon our established collective ideas about a certain territory, its various landscape and geographical features, that become rooted in the national mentality. In this sense, the process of human self-identification through geographical naming practices is determined in many ways by the gender aspect. Toponyms often reflect specific male and female characteristics, thus highlighting the importance of gender in human perception of the space. This article is based on a study of the usage of geographical names in Adygea and the Krasnodar region. A semantic domain defined as “gender relations” was singled out. Within its semantic structure, components such as “image of man”, “image of women”, and “image of kin” were established. The results obtained show that the identified naming models are anthroponymic in nature and function as the main mechanisms for generating most toponymic units.
Keywords
toponym,
concept,
toponymic worldview,
conceptual framework,
linguistic consciousness,
gender oppositions
Supporting agencies: Adyghe State University (Maykop) is gratefully acknowledged for the assistance in developing the research concept and collecting the material. Thanks are also extended to the Novorossiysk Institute (Branch) of Moscow Humanitarian Economic University for supporting this study.
About the Author
E. F. Kovlakas
Adyghe State University; Novorossiysk Institute (Branch) of Moscow Humanitarian Economic University
Россия
Россия
Elena F. Kovlakas, Cand. Sci. (Philology), Associate Professor, Doctoral Student, Department of General Linguistics; Associate Professor, Department of Customs and International Relations
Maykop, Russia
Novorossiysk, Russia
References
1. Ufimtseva A.A. The impact of vocabulary in human perception of reality on the development of linguistic worldview. In: Serebrennikov B.A., Kubryakova E.S., Postovalova V.I., et al. Rol’ chelovecheskogo faktora v yazyke. Yazyk i kartina mira [Human Factor and Its Role in Language. Language and Worldview]. Serebrennikov B.A. (Ed.). Moscow, Nauka, 1988, pp. 108–140. (In Russian)
2. Karaulov Yu.N. Obshchaya i russkaya ideografiya [General and Russian Ideography]. Мoscow, Nauka, 1976. 355 p. (In Russian)
3. Serebrennikov B.A. Does language reflect reality or express it in a symbolic way? In: Serebrennikov B.A., Kubryakova E.S., Postovalova V.I., et al. Rol’ chelovecheskogo faktora v yazyke. Yazyk i kartina mira [Human Factor and Its Role in Language. Language and Worldview]. Serebrennikov B.A. (Ed.). Moscow, Nauka, 1988, pp. 70–86 p. (In Russian)
4. Kolshanskii G.B. Ob’ektivnaya kartina mira v poznanii i yazyke [Objective Worldview in Cognition and Language]. Şakhnarovich L.M. (Ed.). Moscow, Nauka, 1990. 103 p. (In Russian)
5. Potebnja A.A. Teoreticheskaya poetika [Theoretical Poetics]. Moscow, Vyssh. Shk., 1990. 342 p. (In Russian)
6. Lakoff G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987. 632 p.
7. Weisgerber L. Zweimal Sprache. Düsseldorf, Schwann, 1973. 228 S. (In German)
8. Frolov N.K. Lexical and semantic types of toponymic geographical appellatives in the Russian dialects of the Tyumen region of the Ob River. In: Aspekty vuzovskoi rusistiki [Aspects of Russian Studies in Higher Education]. Tyumen, Izd. Tyumen. Gos. Univ., 1998, pp. 17–24. (In Russian)
9. Stepanov Yu.S. Yazyk i metod. K sovremennoi filosofii yazyka [Language and Method. On Contemporary Philosophy of Language]. Moscow, Yazyki Russ. Kul’t., Koshelev, 1998. 779 p. (In Russian)
10. Apresjan J.D. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works]. Vol. II: Integral description of language and systematic lexicography. Moscow, Vost. Lit., 1995. 767 p. (In Russian)
11. Maslova V.A. Lingvikul’turologiya [Linguoculturology]. Moscow, Academia, 2001. 202 p. (In Russian)
12. Teliya V.N. Russkaya frazeologiya: semanticheskie, grammaticheskie i lingvokul’turologicheskie aspekty [Russian Phraseology: Semantic, Grammatical, and Linguoculturological Aspects]. Moscow, Yazyki Russ. Kul’t., 1996. 284 p. (In Russian)
13. Kirilina A.B. The female voice in Russian paremiology. Zhenshchina v Rossiiskom Obshchestve, 1997, no. 3, pp. 23–26. (In Russian)
14. Shishigina O.Yu. Verbalizatsiya kontsepta “zhenshchina” v angliiskoi frazeologii [Verbalization of the Concept “Woman” in English Phraseology]. Kemerovo, Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2006. 140 p. (In Russian)
15. Goroshko E.I. Linguistic consciousness (associative paradigm). Dr. Sci. (Philology) Diss. Moscow, 2001. 609 p. (In Russian)
16. Berezovich E.L. Toponimiya Russkogo Severa: etnolingvisticheskoe issledovanie [Toponymy of the Russian North: An Ethnolinguistic Study]. Yekaterinburg, Izd. Ural. Univ., 1998. 335 p. (In Russian)
17. Kolesov V.V. Yazyk i mental’nost’ [Language and Mentality]. St. Petersburg, Peterb. Vostokoved., 2004. 237 p. (In Russian)
18. Pimenova M.B. Cultural symbols and methods for conceptualizing the human inner world (the conceptual metaphor of home). In: Kontsept. Obraz. Ponyatie. Simvol: k 70-letiyu prof. V.V. Kolesova [Image. Concept. Symbol: On the 70th Anniversary of Professor M.B. Pimenov’s Birth]. Pimenova M.V. (Ed.). Kemerovo, IPK “Grafika”, 2004, pp. 35–60. (In Russian)
19. Nikitina S.E. Ustnaya narodnaya kul’tura i yazykovoe soznanie [Oral Folk Culture and Linguistic Consciousness]. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. 187 p. (In Russian)
20. Martynenko I.A. On the term “cognitive toponymy”. Russian Linguistic Bulletin, 2020, no. 3 (23), pp. 55–60. https://doi.org/10.18454/RULB.2020.23.3.15.
21. Golomidova M.V. Iskusstvennaya nominatsiya v russkoi onomastike [Artificial Naming in Russian Onomastics]. Yekaterinburg, Ural. Gos. Pedagog. Univ., 1998. 232 p. (In Russian)
22. Evstifeev R.V., Evstifeeva G.G. Urban gender regimes through the lens of critical toponymy. Science. Culture. Society, 2025, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 111–128. https://doi.org/10.19181/nko.2025.31.2.9. (In Russian)
23. Pylkova A.A., Jin Liang. Linguocultural features of Chinese toponymic vocabulary (a case study of hodonyms and agoronyms). Epokha Nauki, 2021, no. 25, pp. 242–250. https://doi.org/10.24412/2409-3203-2021-25-242-250. (In Russian)
24. Korneva V.V., Razvorotneva I.N. Toponyms in headings of media texts (based on the Spanish language). Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2023, no. 4, pp. 83–89. https://doi.org/10.17308/lic/1680-5755/2023/4/83-89. (In Russian)
25. Meretukov K.Kh. Adygeiskii toponimicheskii slovar’ [Adyghe Toponymic Dictionary]. Maykop, Kachestvo, 2003. 424 p. (In Russian)
26. Selishchev A.M. Origin of Russian last names, given names, and nicknames. In: Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works]. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1968, pp. 97–128. (In Russian)
27. Kovlakas E.F. The formation of the toponymic worldview: lexical pragmatic and ethnocultural aspects. Extended Abstract of Dr. Sci. (Philology) Diss. Krasnodar, 2009. 51 p. (In Russian)
Review
For citations:
Kovlakas E.F. Toponymic worldview: Gender-specific characteristics in nomination of space. Kazan Journal of Historical, Linguistic, and Legal Research. 2025;167(5-6):143-154. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26907/2541-7738.2025.5-6.143-154
Views:
10
JATS XML
Email this article 