Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 21:2 (2023) ► pp.331–350

An onomasiological competition

A view from sociocultural perspective

| The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
An onomasiological competition between lexical units, in which they compete to name a certain object (phenomenon, process, event, etc.), rarely attracts the attention of linguists, mainly due to an interdisciplinary nature of such research and the lack of a developed methodology for that. In this article, the author presents a case study of the onomasiological competition between constructions of otkryvat' butylku (‘to open a bottle’) and otkuporivat' butylku (‘to uncork a bottle’) during the 19th and 20th centuries and reveals sociocultural factors influencing the course and result of this competition. Based on this analysis, a few sociocultural scenarios that should be taken into consideration in research of various types of onomasiological competition are presented.
Keywords: onomasiology, concept, diachronic analysis, sociocultural perspective, bottle opening
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basic approaches to the definition of onomasiology: Some critical remarks
  • 3.The case study: The onomasiological competition between the constructions of otkryvat' butylku and otkuporivat' butylku in 19th century Russian
  • 4.The case study: The onomasiological competition between the constructions otkryvat' butylku and otkuporivat' butylku in 20th century Russian
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00139.gle
References (37)
References
Blank, A. (1997). Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen, Tubingen: Niemeye. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldinger, K. (1980). Semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chernjak, V. (Ed.) (2015). Russkij jazyk i kul’tura rechi. Praktikum. Slovar’ [Russian language and culture of speech. Training. Dictionary]. Moscow, Jurajt.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. (1998). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ermakova, O. (2000). Semanticheskie processy v leksike [Semantic processes in vocabulary]. In E. Zemskaja (Ed.), Russkij jazyk XX stoletija (1985–1995) [Russian language in the 20th century] (pp. 32–66). Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxfor & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). Ten lectures on cognitive sociolinguistics. Leiden; Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glebkin, V. (2007). Sovetskaja kul’tura 20-30-h godov: poisk metodologicheskih orientirov [Soviet culture of the 20s – 30s: search for methodological guidelines]. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 3 (4), 50–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007a). Sovetskaja kul’tura [Soviet culture]. In S. Levit (Ed.), Kul’turologiya. Enciklopediya. [Cultural studies. Encyclopedia]. V 2 t., 21 (pp. 510–520). M.: ROSSPEN.Google Scholar
(2014). Smena paradigm v lingvisticheskoj semantike: ot izoljacionizma k sociokul’turnym modeljam [Change of paradigms in linguistic semantics: from isolationism to sociocultural models]. Moscow: Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ.Google Scholar
(2018). Kategorii russkoj kul’tury XVIII-XX vv. Skuka. [Categories of Russian culture of 18th – 20th centuries. Boredom]. Moscow; Sankt-Petersburg: Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ.Google Scholar
(2021). Otkryvanie butylok kak predmet lingvokul’turnogo analiza [Opening bottles as a subject of linguocultural analysis]. Russkij jazyk v nauсhnom osveshchenii [Russian Language and Linguistic Theory], 41 (1), 64–86.Google Scholar
Gregory, P. (2009). Terror by quota: State security from Lenin to Stalin (an archival study). New Haven: Yale University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grzega, J. (2002). Some Thoughts on a Cognitive Onomasiological Approach to Word-formation with Special Reference to English. Onomasiology Online, 3 1, 1–29.Google Scholar
(2004a). Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? Ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie, Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
(2004b). A qualitative and quantitative presentation of the forces for lexemic change in the history of English. Onomasiology Online, 5 1, 15–55.Google Scholar
(2007). Summary, Supplement and Index for Grzega, Bezeichnungswandel, 2004. Onomasiology Online, 8 1, 18–196.Google Scholar
Kostomarov, V. (1999). Jazykovoj vkus jepohi [Language taste of the era]. Sankt-Petersburg: Zlatoust.Google Scholar
Lee, St. J. (1999). Stalin and the Soviet Union. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lotman, Ju. M. (1996). Ocherki po istorii russkoj kul’tury XVIII – nachala XIX veka [Essays on the history of Russian culture of the 18th and early 19th centuries]. In Iz istorii russkoj kul’tury, T. 4 (XVIII – nachalo XIX veka) [From the history of Russian culture, V. 4 (the 18th and early 19th centuries)] (pp. 13–348). Мoscow: Shkola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.Google Scholar
(1996a). Pojetika bytovogo povedenija v russkoj kul’ture veka [Poetics of everyday behavior in Russian culture of the 18th century]. In Iz istorii russkoj kul’tury, T. 4 (XVIII – nachalo XIX veka) [From the history of Russian culture, V. 4 (the 18th and early 19th centuries)] (pp. 537–574). Мoscow: Shkola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (1992). Semantic theories in Europe, 1830–1930: From etymology to contextuality. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niva, Zh. (1995). Russkij simvolizm [Russian symbolism]. In Zh. Niva, I. Serman, V. Strada, & E. Jetkind (Eds.), Istorija russkoj literatury: XX vek: Serebrjanyj vek [History of Russian literature: 20th century: Silver century] (pp. 73–105). Moscow: Izd. gruppa “Progress” – “Litera”.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. (1989). Politics, language, and time: essays on political thought and history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pyman, A. (2006). A history of Russian symbolism. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1905). Philosophie der Mode. Berlin: Pan-Verlag.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (1998). An onomasiological theory of word-formation in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). English word-formation: A history of research (1960–1995). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(2005). Meaning predictability in word formation: Novel, context-free naming units. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P., Salvador, V., & Körtvélyessy, L. (2012). Word-formation in the world’s languages: a typological survey. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valgina, N. (2003). Aktivnye processy v sovremennom russkom jazyke [Active processes in modern Russian]. Moscow: Logos.Google Scholar
Vajl’, P., & Genis, A. (2001). 60-e. Mir sovetskogo cheloveka [60s. The world of the Soviet man]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.Google Scholar
Volkov, V. (1999). The Concept of Kul’turnost’: Notes on the Stalinist Civilizing Process. In S. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), Stalinism: New directions (pp. 210–230). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Winter-Froemel, E. (2013). Formal variance and semantic changes in borrowing: Integrating semasiology and onomasiology. In E. Zenner & G. Kristansen (Eds.), New perspectives on lexical borrowing: Onomasiological, methodological and phraseological innovations (pp. 65–100). Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zauner, A. (1903). Die romanischen Namen der Körperteile: eine onomasiologische Studie. Romanische Forschungen, 14 1, 339–530.Google Scholar