Proper Names in the Light of Theoretical Onomastics

Proper Names In the Light of Theoretical Onomastics121sphere has been developing since 1945 4 . Its beginnings are linked to an attemptto apply a semiotic and functional-structural approach to the researchinto proper names (see V. Blanár, Osobné mená. K základom semiologickejonomastiky, 1945, manusc. Proper names. On the basis of semioticonomas tics). This deals with an attempt to comprehend the structural organisationin the system of Slovak official and unofficial (living) personalnames. This structure is investigated as “ types of names ”. It was understoodas an “abstracted naming paradigm ” which is formed by onymicsigns with a certain structure of semantic functions (cf. 113). From 1966and 1967, I have been using the term model (of personal names). In myfurther research, in the description of the content aspect of personalnames, I used a method of component analysis and synthesis and I alsoformulated the theory and method of modelling aspects of the contentand motivation of proper names by defining the general naming principlesin the proprial nomination of personal names (Blanár 1970/ 71; summarisedin 1996; the classification of word-forming models and types isalso outlined here). The substantiation and perspective of this procedurewas validated with a set of almost 60 000 living personal names from centralSlovakia (Blanár / Matejčík – [Šmelík] 1978 / 83). As the research continues,the set of onymic features (of prototypical character) in the designationof names has been extended. A similar theory and method of modellingis applied and developed by E.-M. Christoph and G. Wotjak (onthe theory of onymic features), J. Matejčík, I. Valentová (living personalnames in the upper Nitra region), M. Imrichová (a subsystem of logonyms),M. Jozefovič (computer technique in the modelling of living proper names and its evaluation by graphs and maps), I. Haraj (anthroponymicsystems in the naming of persons in the Classical period), W. Wenzel(old personal names in Lusatian Serbia), S. Paikkala (the developmentof the anthroponymic system in Finland), M. Ološtiak, A. Holá, Ľ.Sičáková, M. Kazík and others. The application of this methodology hasfacilitated an insight into a system of personal naming (a symbiosis oforiginal local and European official naming) and into differences in theuse of several functional components in some African and Asian ethnicgroups in communication (Blanár 1988, 1996). A similar theoretical start-4 Pleskalová 1992, 15: “In onymy, the model classification was first applied to anthroponymyby V. Blanár.”