ONOMASTIC SPACE IN LITERARY DISCOURSE: COGNITIVE, CULTURAL AND LINGUOPOETIC DIMENSIONS
Abstract
This article examines the concept of the onomastic scope of a literary text from a linguopoetic perspective. Modern onomastic studies have expanded beyond the traditional investigation of the origin and classification of proper names to encompass their functional, cognitive, cultural, and aesthetic dimensions. Within literary discourse, onomastic units perform not only nominative functions but also contribute to textual coherence, characterization, symbolic representation, intertextuality, and the realization of the author’s artistic intention. The study aims to determine the structural composition, functional organization, and linguo-poetic significance of the onomastic scope in literary texts. The research employs descriptive, structural-semantic, and linguo-poetic methods to analyze various categories of proper names occurring in Uzbek literary works. The findings demonstrate that the onomastic scope constitutes an integrated functional-semantic system in which anthroponyms, toponyms, mythonyms, zoonyms, and other onomastic units interact to create artistic meaning. The study also proposes a classification model for analyzing the onomastic scope of literary texts and highlights its role in ensuring textual integrity, cultural representation, and aesthetic expressiveness. The results confirm the importance of examining literary onomastics as a distinct field situated at the intersection of linguistics, literary studies, and cultural semiotics.
Keywords
literary onomastics, onomastic scope, poetonym, anthroponym, toponym, linguopoetics, literary text, intertextuality.
References
- Derevyago, A. N. (2008). Proper names in literary texts. Moscow State University Press.
- Yuldashev, M., Andaniyazova, D. Linguopoetics of zoonims in the literary text. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 2022. Vol. 6, Scopus Source: https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21101044228 – P. 5691–5699.
- Karimov, Q. (1967). Personal names in Kutadgu Bilig. Uzbek Language and Literature, 2, 42–45.
- Khudoyberganova, D. (2016). The role of onomastic units in Muhammad Yusuf’s poetry. Sources of Knowledge, 6, 75–80.
- Nyström, S. (2018). Names and meaning. In C. Hough (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of names and naming (pp. 39–51). Oxford University Press.
- Podolskaya, N. V. (2019). Dictionary of Russian onomastic terminology. Moscow: Nauka.
- Reformatsky, A. A. (2017). Introduction to linguistics. Moscow Academic Press.
- Rymes, B. (2020). Communicating beyond language. Routledge.
- Saussure, F. de. (2011). Course in general linguistics. Columbia University Press.
- Sjöblom, P. (2018). Literary onomastics and fictional names. Onoma, 53, 95–112.
- Smith, G. (2021). Proper names and cultural memory in literary discourse. Journal of Literary Semantics, 50(2), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2021-2003.
- Superanskaya, A. V. (2018). General theory of proper names. Moscow: Librokom.
- Toporov, V. N. (2017). Myth. Ritual. Symbol. Image. Progress Publishers.
- Van Langendonck, W., & Van de Velde, M. (2019). Names and grammar. Oxford University Press.
- Yakubov, Sh. (1994). Onomastics of Alisher Navoi’s works (Doctoral dissertation). Tashkent State University.
- Andaniyazova, D. Ethno-cultural bases of anthroponyms of Turkic people. ANGLISTICUM:Journal of the Association-Institute for English Language and American Studies. Volume 13/ Issue 4/. - Teotovo, 2024. Impact factor ICV: 86.76 Andaniyazova, D. Relationship Between Real and Occasional Onomastic Units 3 bet Vol. 05Issue 07.2025. PAGE NO.46-49 https://doi.org/10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue07-14