Hodonymy of Chengdu and Yekaterinburg: a Comparative Aspect

The nominative types and models of the hodonyms of Chengdu and Yekaterinburg is compared in the article, the task of finding universals in the hodonymy is set. There are three main types of hodonyms: descriptive, memorial, and conventionally symbolic. Comparative analysis has shown that the descriptive type can be recognized as universal, since it most fully reflects the main function of the hodonyms: an indication of the location of the object and its characteristics. The authors note that this is the most ancient type for the spontaneously forming hodonymicon of any city. It has been proved that in Yekaterinburg in the Soviet era, descriptive hodonyms are supplanted by memorial ones, these are, first of all, names — dedications to memorable dates and milestones in national history, to specific persons associated with the history of the country and the city. It has been established that descriptive names remain the most widespread in Chengdu, and conventionally symbolic type hodonyms are also popular, among which names, including traditional symbols of Chinese culture, good wishes, as well as abstract concepts expressing various positive qualities predominate. It is emphasized in the article that the hodonyms of the memorial and conditionally symbolic type in Chengdu and Yekaterinburg are fundamentally different, being a reflection of the history and culture of their countries

onomastics, urbanonymy, hodonymy, semantics of onyms, nominative type, nominative model, Chengdu, Yekaterinburg

1. Antonova, Yu. A. (2012). Simvolika kitayskikh chisel v ramkakh teorii i praktiki mezhkulturnoy kommunikatsii [Symbols Chinese numbers in the framework of the theory and practice of intercultural communication]. Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political linguistics], 2 (40): 200—202. (In Russ.).

2. Barinova, E. B. (2014). Etnokulturnyye otnosheniya Kitaya s narodami Tsentralnoy Azii v drevnosti i srednevekovye [Ethnocultural relations of China with the peoples of Central Asia in antiquity and the middle ages]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Istoriya. Filologiya. Kulturologiya. Vostokovedeniye [Bulletin of RSUH. Series: History. Philology. Culturology. Orientalism], 13 (135): 23—36. (In Russ.).

3. Filimonova, E. N. (2004). Obraz kamnya v traditsionnykh predstavleniyakh nekotorykh narodov Dalnego Vostoka [The Image of stone in the traditional representations of some peoples of the Far East]. In: Yazyk, soznaniye, kommunikatsiya: sbornik statey [Language, consciousness, communication: Collection of articles], 28. Moskva: MAKS Press. 5—25. ISBN 5-317-01182-5. (In Russ.).

4. Fu, S. (2010). Tayna i simvolika kitayskogo blagopozhelatelnogo risunka [The Mystery and symbolism of the Chinese benevolent drawing]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk state University]. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/tayna-i-simvolika-kitayskogo-blagopozhelatelnogo-risunka (accessed 16.09.2019). (In Russ.).

5. Go Zhunzhun, Khayyun’ Yan. (2020). Kult dereva v kitayskoy natsionalnoy kulture [Tree Cult in Chinese national culture]. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal gumanitarnykh i yestestvennykh nauk [International journal of Humanities and natural Sciences], 5—1 (44): 6—9. DOI: 10.24411/2500-1000-2020-10436. (In Russ.).

6. Kachalkova, Yu. A. (2013). Iz istorii urbanonimii Ekaterinburga [From the history of urbanmonkey Ekaterinburg]. Filologicheskiy klass [Philological class], 2 (32): 94—96. (In Russ.).

7. Kachalkova, Yu. A. (2013). Urbanonimicheskoye prostranstvo sovremennogo Ekaterinburga [Urbanomics contemporary Yekaterinburg]. Voprosy onomastiki [Questions about onomastics], 1: 88—104. (In Russ.).

8. Kachalkova, Yu. A., Rut, M. E. (2019). «Ideologicheskiye» urbanonimy i pereimenovaniye gorodskikh obektov [“Ideological” urbanity and renaming city facilities]. Voprosy onomastiki [Questions about onomastics], 16 (3): 179—192. DOI: 10.15826/vopr_onom.2019.16.3.038. (In Russ.).

9. Li Mo, Ryabtseva, E. S. (2020). Godonimiya Shankhaya i Ekaterinburga: sopostavitelnyy aspekt [Goodanime Shanghai and Ekaterinburg: comparative aspect]. Voprosy onomastiki [Questions about onomastics], 17 (1): 136—149. DOI: 10.15826/vopr_onom.2020.17.1.007. (In Russ.).

10. Makhortova, O. V., Mordovina, L. V. (2011). Osobennosti simvoliki i znakovosti Kitaya [Features of symbols and signs of China]. Analitika kulturologii [Analysis of cultural studies], 1 (19): 137—139. (In Russ.).

11. Pen Syao. (2014). Obozreniye kulturnykh osobennostey goroda Chendu s pomoshchyu analiza izmeneniya nazvaniy ulits [Review of cultural features of the city of Chengdu by analyzing changes in street names]. Zhurnal Sichuanskogo instituta [Journal of the Sichuan Institute], 4: 59—62. Available at: http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-XCSF201404017.htm (accessed 20.09.2019) (In Chin.).

12. Shmeleva, T. V. (2008). Sovetskoye naslediye v novgorodskoy godonimii [The Soviet legacy in the Novgorod godonii]. In: Sovetskaya kultura v sovremennom sotsioprostranstve Rossii: transformatsii i perspektivy: Materialy nauchnoy internet-konferentsii. Ekaterinburg 28—29 maya 2008 g [Soviet culture in the modern social space of Russia: transformations and prospects: Materials of the scientific Internet conference. Yekaterinburg may 28—29, 2008]. Ekaterinburg: [b. i.]. 1—20. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10995/1797 (accessed 16.09.2019). (In Russ.).

13. Sidikhmenov, V. Ya. (2000). Kitay: stranitsy proshlogo [China: pages of the past]. Smolensk: Rusich. 540 p. Available at: https://royallib.com/book/sidihmenov_vasiliy/kitay_stranitsi_proshlogo.html (accessed 23.09.2019). (In Russ.).

14. Sizova, E. A. (2004). Lingvokulturologicheskiy analiz urbanonimov: na materiale russkogo, angliyskogo i frantsuzskogo yazykov. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. [Linguoculturological analysis of urbanonyms: based on the material of Russian, English and French languages. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss.]. Pyatigorsk. 16 p. (In Russ.).

15. Somkina, N. A. (2009). Kitayskaya traditsiya blagopozhelaniy: simvolika zhivotnykh i rasteniy [Chinese tradition of good wishes: symbolism of animals and plants]. Vestnik SPbGU [Vestnik SPBU], 13 (2): 77—86. (In Russ.).

16. Uilyams, Ch. (2011). Kitayskaya kultura: mify, geroi, simvoly [Chinese culture: myths, heroes, symbols]. Moskva: Tsentr-poligraf. 478 p. (In Russ.).

17. Van Khua. (2014). Sopostavleniye nazvaniy ulits v kitayskoy i russkoy lingvokulturakh (na materiale nazvaniy po imenam istoricheskikh lits) [The comparison of street names in Chinese and Russian linguistic cultures (on the material of names according to the names of historical persons)]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. «Filologiya» [Bulletin of the Moscow University. «Philology»], 9 (1): 219—230. (In Russ.).

18. Van Li. (2007). Russkoyazychnaya urbanonimiya Belarusi v sopostavlenii s kitayskoy: struktura, nominatsiya. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. [Russian-language urbanonymy of Belarus in comparison with Chinese: structure, nomination. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss.]. Minsk. 20 p. (In Russ.).

19. Voytishek, E. E., Yao, C. (2018). Kurilnitsy boshanlu v aromaticheskoy kulture Kitaya: simvolika i sotsialnyye funktsii [Boshanlu incense Burners in the aromatic culture of China: symbolism and social functions]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Vostokovedeniye i afrikanistika [Bulletin of Saint Petersburg University. Oriental and African studies], 10 (4): 510—524. — DOI: 10.21638/spbu13.2018.408. (In Russ.).