2024, Volume 21, Issue 3

Back to the Table of Contents

Dmitry Kirillovich Polyakov
Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

PERSONAL NAME AS A MARKER OF A NEW SEMIOTIC SYSTEM: INTER-SLAVIC PARALLELS (from the National Revival of the 19th c. to Modern Neo-Paganism)

For citation
Polyakov, D. K. (2024). Personal Name as a Marker of a New Semiotic System: Inter-Slavic Parallels (from the National Revival of the 19th c. to Modern Neo-Paganism). Voprosy onomastiki, 21(3), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2024.21.3.035

Received on 6 July 2024
Accepted on 10 September 2024

Abstract: This article examines naming practices in three different types of situations: during the Czech and Slovak National Revival of the first half of the 19th century, in Russia and the USSR in the 1920s, and in contemporary neo-pagan communities of various Slavic countries. Despite the differences in historical and cultural context, these situations are typologically comparable. Each of them involves the construction of a new sign system, in which new anthroponyms play a key role, along with other linguistic and extra-linguistic phenomena. In all three situations there was an anthroponymic boom, a mass creation of new personal names (neo-anthroponyms) that would be used by the bearer of the new code. The source of motivation for name-making in the National Revival and neo-paganism is the traditional, even archaic set of Slavic patterns, since “Slavicness” is seen as the highest value (cf. the Czech 1830s “patriotic names” Pravoslav, Rodomil, Dobromila, etc., or the neo-pagan names Pravdomir, Budislav, Vitoslav, etc.). Anthroponymic practices of the early Soviet Union, on the contrary, focused primarily on other patterns, such as abbreviation (Kim, Marklen, Vilena, etc.), whaile some new personal names were also created following the traditional “Slavic” patterns (Krasnoslav, Novomir). The use of this word-formational pattern in different cultural situations indicates its continuity and great pragmatic potential.

Keywords: anthroponymy; naming; name change; Slavic names; patriotic names; revolutionary names; neo-pagan names; national revival; romantic nationalism

Acknowledgements
The research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 22-18-00365 Semiotic Models in the Cross-Cultural Space: Balcano-Balto-Slavica, https://rscf.ru/en/project/22-18-00365.

References

Bondaletov, V. D. (1983). Russkaia onomastika [Russian Onomastics]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie.

Čilaš Šimpraga, A., & Brgles, B. (2017). Imenska osnova bog u hrvatskoj antroponimiji s osobitim osvrtom na osobna imena. Onomastica, 61(1), 119–138. http://doi.org./1 0.17651/ONOMAST.61.1.8

Dianova, E. V. (2021). Evoliutsiia praktiki imianarecheniia v pervye desiatiletiia sovetskoi vlasti [Evolution of Naming Practices in the Early Decades of Soviet Power]. Istoriia povsednevnosti, 1(17), 76–103. https://doi.org/10.35231/25422375_2021_1_76

Dushechkina, E. (2005). Messianskie tendentsii v sovetskoi antroponimicheskoi praktike 1920–1930-kh godov [Messianic Trends in Soviet Anthroponymic Practices of the 1920s–1930s]. Toronto Slavic Quarterly, 12. Retrieved from https://sites.utoronto.ca/tsq/12/dushechkina12.shtml

Macura, V. (1980). Česká vlastenecká jména a jejich „znamenané“. Slavia, 3, 215–217.

Macura, V. (2015). Znamení zrodu a české sny. Prague: Academia.

Melnikov, G. P. (2005). Cheshskaia kul’tura [Czech Culture]. In G. P. Melnikov (Ed.), Istoriia kul’tur slavianskikh narodov [History of the Cultures of Slavic Peoples] (Vol. 2, pp. 423–467). Moscow: GASK.

Palkovič, K. (1970). Staršie pokusy o poslovenčenie rodných mien. Kultúra slova, 5, 136–141.

Polyakov, D. K. (2016). Revoliutsionnaia epokha i iazykovoi vzryv: russkii iazyk v 1920-e i v 1990-e gody [Revolutionary Era and Linguistic Explosion: Russian Language in the 1920s and 1990s]. In N. V. Zlydneva (Ed.), Kategoriia vzryva i tekst slavianskoi kul’tury [The Category of Explosion and the Text of Slavic Culture] (pp. 127–136). Moscow: Sovpadenie.

Sedakova, I. A. (2007). Novaia pragmatika arkhaicheskikh modelei: imena neoiazychnikov [New Pragmatics of Archaic Models: Names of Neopagans]. In T. M. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Imia: Semanticheskaia aura [Name: Semantic Aura] (pp. 166–188). Moscow: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur.

Selishchev, A. M. (1928). Iazyk revoliutsionnoi epokhi: Iz nabliudenii nad russkim iazykom poslednikh let. 1917–1926 [Language of the Revolutionary Era: Observations on the Russian Language in Recent Years, 1917–1926]. Moscow: Rabotnik prosveshcheniia.

Šmilauer, V. (1991). Úvodem. In F. Kopečný, Průvodce našimi jmény (2nd ed., pp. 9–35). Prague: Academia.

Sršeň, L. (2004). Čeští vlastenci na portrétech Jozefa Božetěcha Klemense (nově objevená díla). Sborník Národního muzea v Praze. Řada A — Historie, 2–4, 1–80.

Stępień, S. (2022). Imiona w radzieckiej rzeczywistości. Nowe życie miało znaleźć odzwierciedlenie nawet w nowych imionach. Rocznik Przemyski. Historia, 4(28), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.4467/24497347RPH.22.009.16632

Zhivov, V. (2005). Iazyk i revoliutsiia. Razmyshleniia nad staroi knigoi A. M. Selishcheva [Language and Revolution. Reflections on the Old Book by A. M. Selishchev]. Otechestvennye zapiski, 2. Retrieved from https://strana-oz.ru/2005/2/yazyk-i-revolyuciya-razmyshleniya-nad-staroyknigoy-a-m-selishcheva