The Use and the Recognition of Antonomasia – the Comparison Between Younger and Older Speakers

Grgić, Ana and Nikolić, Davor. (2011). The Use and the Recognition of Antonomasia – the Comparison Between Younger and Older Speakers. Govor : časopis za fonetiku, 28(1). pp. 25-43. ISSN 0352-7565

Preview

PDF (Croatian) Download (333kB) | Preview

Abstract

Classical rhetoric and poetics used the term antonomasia to denote the substitution of any appellative, epithet or periphrasis for a proper name. Since the 17th century, under the influence of the Dutch rhetorician Gerardus Vossius, antonomasia has also been defined as the use of a proper name to denote a class of person or thing. Therefore this latter type is called Vossian antonomasia, as opposed to the classical one. Classical antonomasia uses appellative that in certain culture unambiguosly refers to the replaced proper name (e.g. Philosopher for Aristotle or Lord for God). Periphrasis of the same status can also be used (e.g. city under Marjan for Split or hero of Szigetvár for Nikola Šubić Zrinski). Vossian antonomasia, on the other hand, denotes a trope which transfers one key trait of the particular proper name (e.g. Juda's betrayal, Twiggy's thinnes or obscenity of Sodom and Gomorrah) to persons, places or events that share the same trait. This type of antonomasia relies on collective cultural memory of archetypal mythological, historical, biblical and literary characters or places (proper names in general). In contemporary culture, such antonomasias are constructed upon proper names of the popular culture (film, television, sport, music). Since the vossian antonomasias imply knowledge of connections between replaced traits and proper names, they tend to become phrases. Long-term use of certain antonomasias creates eponyms. The purpose of this research was to point out to similarities and differences in the way in which older and younger speakers use both types of antonomasias. The test was conducted by using a questionnaire that contained three different tests. The research confirmed the initial hypothesis that the two groups will demonstrate some differences in the use of contemporary proper names and similarities in the names derived from the Bible. The analysis has shown that there are also education-related differences in the use and the recognition of historical and mythological antonomasias.

Actions (login required)

View Item