2024, Volume 21, Issue 3
|
Marina Vasilyevna Golomidova THE IMAGE OF EKATERINBURG THROUGH THE PRISM OF URBANONYMIC DISCOURSE
For citation Received on 26 July 2024 Abstract: The article explores the potential of a discursive approach and the concept of urbanonymic discourse to analyze urban toponymy as a reflection of a city’s image and territorial identity. The authors employ a semiotic perspective, viewing urban space as a text. Within this framework, urbanonymic discourse is defined as a collection of iconic works or microtexts that integrate urban toponyms with their verbal and non-verbal contexts, connected both semantically and spatially. The study identifies two types of microtexts within urbanonymic discourse: monosemiotic and polysemiotic. Monosemiotic urbanonymic microtexts comprise clusters of urban toponyms linked by a common nominative theme. Polysemiotic urbanonymic microtexts, in contrast, are symbolic combinations of urbanonyms and non-verbal elements that are thematically and semantically interrelated. Special attention is given to the phenomenon of urbanonymic “echo,” regarded as a specific form of polysemiotic microtext. In Ekaterinburg’s urbanonymic discourse, key nominative themes include national and regional history, literature, sport, science and education, as well as the city’s distinctive economic activities. Spatial analysis shows that the city center predominantly features microtexts associated with themes of history, governance, business, art, and science, while microtexts reflecting industrial and transport themes are concentrated in specific districts and neighborhoods. The city’s toponymic “portrait” underscores a strong connection to historical roots, an interplay of different eras, and a unique fusion of industry and culture. Microtexts from various parts of Ekaterinburg also evoke allusions to lost landmarks and past urban landscapes. The authors argue that the discursive approach provides a valuable framework for the comprehensive analysis of urbanonyms in other cities. This approach offers deeper insights into territorial identity and holds practical significance for toponymic policy and place branding. Keywords: Urbanonym; urbanonymic discourse; nominative theme; urbanonymic microtext; monosemiotic urbanonymic microtext; polysemiotic urbanonymic microtext; territorial identity; Ekaterinburg Acknowledgements References Golomidova, M. V. (2023). Ekaterinburg — Sverdlovsk — Ekaterinburg: Obraz goroda v dinamike toponimicheskogo teksta [Ekaterinburg — Sverdlovsk — Ekaterinburg: The City Image in the Dynamics of the Toponymic Text]. Slovo.ru: Baltiiskii aktsent, 14(1), 29‒53. https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2023-1-2 Golomidova, M. V., Razumov, R. V., Dmitrieva, A. V., Goryaev, S. O., Lanj, L., & Klimenko, E. N. (2023). Gorodskaia toponimiia: sovremennaia politika i praktika imenovaniia [Urban Toponymy: Modern Policy and Naming Practices]. Ekaterinburg: Ural University Press. Jaworski, A. (2015). Globalese: A New Visual-linguistic Register. Social Semiotics, 25(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2015.1010317 Kachalkova, Yu. A. (2013). Urbanonimicheskoe prostranstvo sovremennogo Ekaterinburga (ofitsial’nye nazvaniia) [The Urbanonymic Space of Modern Ekaterinburg (Official Names)]. Voprosy onomastiki, 1(14), 88–104. Polezhaeva, S. S. (2023). Polikodovost’ pridnestrovskikh urbanonimov [Multicodedness of Transnistrian Urbanonyms]. In A. A. Sorokina (Ed.), Aktual’nye voprosy gumanitarnykh nauk: teoriia, metodika, praktika: sbornik nauchnykh statei v ramkakh X Vserossiiskoi nauchnoprakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem [Current Issues of the Humanities: Theory, Methodology, Practice (Proceedings of the 10th All-Russian Conference with International Participation] (pp. 138–148). Moscow: Zertsalo-M. Prokudina, O. A. (2014). Kognitivnye mekhanizmy vizual’noi pertseptsii kommercheskogo imeni v semioticheskom landshafte goroda [Cognitive Mechanisms of Visual Perception of a Commercial Name in the Semiotic Landscape of the City]. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki, 2, 79–82. Razumov, R. V., & Goryaev, S. O. (2020). Transliatsiia regional’noi identichnosti v urbanonimii rossiiskikh gorodov: sovremennoe sostoianie [Manifestations of Regional Identity in Contemporary Russian Urbanonymy]. Voprosy onomastiki, 17(2), 201‒219. https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2020.17.2.024 Sandst, L., & Syrjälä, V. (2020). Proper Names in the Linguistic Landscape: Theoretical Challenges in a Multimodal Discourse. Norna-Rapporter, 98, 337–355. Shmeleva, T. V. (2020). Veliky Novgorod: onomasticheskii portret [Veliky Novgorod: An Onomastic Portrait]. Veliky Novgorod: Pechatnyi dvor. Sokolova, T. P. (2019). Mezhdistsiplinarnyi podkhod k issledovaniiu gorodskikh vyvesok [An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Urban Signs]. In V. L. Vasilyev (Ed.), Onomastika Povolzh’ia: materialy XVII Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Onomastics of the Volga Region: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference] (pp. 456–460). Veliky Novgorod: Pechatnyi dvor. https://doi.org/10.34680/2019.onomastics.456 Tufi, S., & Blackwood, R. (2010). Trademarks in the Linguistic Landscape: Methodological and Theoretical Challenges in Qualifying brand Names in the Public Space. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710903568417 Vepreva, I. T., & Kharitonova, A. V. (2023). Onomasticheskoe prostranstvo Ekaterinburga: urovnevaia organizatsiia markerov regional’noi identichnosti [Onomastic Space of Ekaterinburg: Level-Based Markers of Regional Identity]. Voprosy onomastiki, 20(3), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2023.20.3.037.
|
 |
