See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336890508

Cognitive approaches to Hungarian toponymy

Article in Onoma · October 2012

CITATIONS READS

13 171

1 author:

Katalin Reszegi
University of Debrecen
20 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

onomastics, cognitive linguistics View project

onomastics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Katalin Reszegi on 30 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Cognitive approaches to Hungarian
toponymy1

Katalin RESZEGI

Introduction
According to the cognitive approach language is a product of the human mind, thus it can be
investigated as a cognitive phenomenon. Holistic models consider it especially important that
language is an integral part of the cognitive system, which is why we have to take into consideration
this bi-directional connection during the examination of language. It is also important that this
approach doesn't separate the language and its use from the person who's speaking. The cognitive
view describes language through cognitive processes such as categorisation, prototype theory or
conceptual metaphor and conceptual metonymy. Toponyms, as elements of language, are also the
products of the human mind, produced by people living in communities. The cognitive aspect
practically replaces the toponyms in the medium in which they function, and makes possible
complex research into the use of toponyms. Therefore it seems that the cognitive approach can be
used effectively in several areas of toponymy, and it can offer a solution to some questions of
onomastics, that can't be answered satisfactorily by traditional means (e.g. the problem of the status
of the names which are formed from geographical common nouns). Applying the cognitive view,
however, such aspects concerning the usage of toponyms can be foregrounded which previously
could not be raised in toponymic research (e.g. the relationship between cognitive maps and
toponyms). The cognitive view is not, however, unprecedented in Hungarian toponymic studies.
Nevertheless the current cognitive trends only appeared in the 2000s in Hungarian onomastic
studies. In my paper I review how the cognitive approach is used in Hungarian onomastic research
and consider the results of applying the cognitive view.

Background
Hungarian onomastic research (especially historical onomastics) has always been open to other
areas of linguistics, as well as to ways of thinking and results of related study fields. Thus the
examination of linguistic signs has long involved the observation of phenomena outside of the
linguistic system: besides social factors, the special features of human thinking have also been taken
into consideration.

1 This work was carried out as part of Research Group on Hungarian Language History and Toponomastics (University of Debrecen—Hungarian
Academy of Science).
 KATALIN RESZEGI 2

The psychological viewpoint already appeared in studies carried out by Lajos Lőrincze. He
attempted to reconstruct differences between psychological situations leading to the emergence and
transformations of names (1947). However, psychological notions had been applied in the
explanation of particular phenomena even before that. An example of this is Manó Kertész’ theory
on the evolution of the type of toponyms emerging from proper names without a formant (1939).
Nowadays in Hungary the systematic categorisation of toponyms is usually performed on the
basis of István Hoffmann’s typology of toponyms developed in 1993. This categorisation is
basically a structuralist approach, yet several of its elements perfectly coincide with cognitive
theory. When revealing the motives behind name-giving, for example, in István Hoffmann’s view
we need to bear in mind that name-giving is a cognitive act (1993: 44).

The Cognitive approach

However, as a general theoretical framework, the cognitive approach appeared in Hungarian
onomastics only as late as the early 21st century. Nevertheless, over this short period of time it has
been applied successfully in numerous fields of onomastic research.
The problem of grammatical categorisation of word-classes and meaning has for a long
time constituted a much disputed question related to proper names both in the Hungarian and the
international literature. Faced with the unsustainability of the traditional grammatical categorisation
of names, András Barabás, György Kálmán C. and Ádám Nádasdy jointly published a study
which—applying the pattern of thought of formal logic—eventually came to question whether
proper names belong to the linguistic system at all (1977).
However, Gábor Tolcsvai Nagy approaches the question from the aspect of cognitive
semantics and provides a description for names on the basis of which several further onomastic
phenomena can be explained effectively. Tolcsvai’s basic assumption—after Langacker (1991,
2008)—is that human cognition categorises a group of phenomena in the realm of things and
entities. Words used for the linguistic expression of things are mostly nouns, that is to say, the
prototypical namings of things are nouns. Also proper names frequently appear in a name-giving
role. Based on their semantic features and function, therefore, according to cognitive semantics—
similarly to the traditional onomastic categorisation—proper names can also be considered elements
of the category of nouns that nevertheless represent a special group within the category. They can be
interpreted as linguistic units, which means that their processing as proper names does not require
breaking them down into linguistic elements that make up the name (Tolcsvai Nagy 2008: 31).
At the same time, between common words and proper names there exists a significant
difference in meaning. Common words represent a type or one of its manifestations, and the
concretisation of the thing denoted by the common word takes always place in the text through
linguistic means. As opposed to this, the type and its realisation manifest simultaneously in the
semantic structure of the proper name. In this way, the entity denoted by the proper name can
basically be identified as unique for participants of the communicational situation, thus its
identification does not necessitate comparison.
 COGNITIVE APPROACHES TO HUNGARIAN TOPONYMY 3

Therefore in this approach, proper names are linguistic units playing the role of nouns, i.e.
similarly to nouns, they bear an encyclopaedic, notion-like meaning which for the respective
speakers may either be totally schematic, or completely elaborate, with countless possible variations
between the two poles (Tolcsvai Nagy 2008, Langacker 1991: 59).2
Besides the theory of cognitive semantics, various cognitive mechanisms have also been
applied rather successfully to the explanation of particular onomastic phenomena. In Hungarian
onomastics several researchers have attempted to create a typology of toponyms. The categories of
these typologies do not necessarily coincide, neither can they handle well the fact that notions of
particular objects may differ from region to region, just like the question of which objects are
denoted by proper names. In addition, it has been articulated as a further problem that, as a rule,
different types of names are not categorised on the basis of linguistic criteria, but by the types of
objects.
However, according to the holistic cognitive approach, the latter concern can be eliminated,
since in the mental system there exists no sharp distinction between notions and the linguistic
system. Categorisation based on the principle of prototypes also seems to resolve further difficulties
related to the typologisation of toponyms. According to the theory of prototypes, as a result of
cognitive processes, human beings create categories that are represented by the most typical objects
or their features. Studies in cognitive linguistics suggest that no sharp distinctions exist between
such categories as the borders between them are often blurred. Whether an object belongs to a
particular category or notion, in turn, is often determined by the resemblance of its features to the
prototype of the category. Furthermore, the categories display differences at the level of
communities or even individuals, reflecting cultural, social and environmental experiences (cf.
Rosch 1978).
In Hungarian onomastics the applicability of prototype-theory was confirmed through the
categorisation of mountain names (cf. Reszegi 2008). When deciding whether a given linguistic
form can be interpreted as a mountain name we need to examine two aspects. On the one hand, we
need to ascertain if the particular linguistic form is a proper name, and on the other, whether it is
used to denote a mountain. However, for this purpose it is necessary to know what is considered a
mountain or elevation in the given region. Individual types of toponyms— among which are
included the group referring to mountains—are categories reflecting our everyday notions about the
world. From the aspect of name usage therefore it is not necessarily relevant how many meters high
the elevation called ’mountain’ (hegy) is. It is not the absolute height, but the characteristics of the
landscape that are important in the naming.
The theory of prototypes can be extended also to the description of linguistic categories and
word classes (cf. Ladányi 1998: 410). According to this, linguistic categories also have typical and
peripheral elements, depending on whether they bear the morphologic, syntactic and semantic, etc.
features characterising the prototype of the particular category.

2 In the international literature, besides Langacker’s theory the concept of Van Langendonck also has a considerable effect on name studies.
However, in Hungarian onomastics no researchers having hitherto investigated place names have accepted this concept of meaning (1999,
2007).
 KATALIN RESZEGI 4

Based on these notions, I have attempted to shed new light on the question of toponyms that
have identical forms with geographic common words (Reszegi 2009a). In the language use of any
community a common word denoting a whole class of things may evolve in a new direction,
obtaining the meaning of a proper name, undergoing a transformation to denote a single entity
belonging to the type. Nevertheless, we are often faced with the difficulty of the decision whether
such linguistic elements indeed bear the value of proper names. In connection with the evolution of
the word’s meaning as a proper name, notably, not only the competence of the descriptive linguist,
but also that of the general language user is uncertain (Hoffmann 1993: 94).
The question is interlinked with two opposing concepts on the emergence of names. Earlier it
was a widely held opinion that common words gradually become proper names. Recently, however,
researchers have emphasised the role of conscious name-giving. According to this view, speakers of
a language create place names after already existing models in their toponymic system. The
uncertainty surrounding the determination of the value as proper name or common word (of purely
geographical common word names) nevertheless indicates that in the case of some names we should
take into consideration the possibility of the gradual toponymisation of common words. This
concept is underpinned in the study carried out by Andrea Heinrich examining the field names of a
settlement. In the consciousness of the population of the settlement geographic common names are
not necessarily distinguished from the proper names that have evolved from them. Some places are
always referred to using geographical common words, yet in the population’s language usage some
geographical common words serve both as common words and proper names. In addition, Heinrich
also records the process of transforming common words into proper names (2000: 14–15).
The uncertainty of categorisation related to pure geographical common word toponyms is a
necessary consequence of the gradual transformation into a name. According to a study which I
carried out on a non-representative sample, nowadays for most users of the Hungarian language the
category of toponyms, particularly microtoponyms is mostly represented by two-part place names,
that is to say, most speakers consider the types of names like Nyerges-hegy (< nyereg + -s ’saddle-
shaped’ + hegy ’mountain’), Zörgő-ér (’rattling + rivulet’), Egyházasvizsoly (’settlement called
Vizsoly that has a church’ < egyház ’church’ + -s topoformant + Vizsoly settlement name) typical
toponyms (Reszegi 2009b). Furthermore, the names created with topoformants are also typical
toponyms. This is underpinned by the considerable number of name forms to be found in literary
works which were created by authors with the help of different formants (cf. Bényei 2007).
Toponyms which are formally identical with geographical common words are obviously peripheral
elements to the category of toponyms, representing a transition between toponyms and common
words. Of course, the existence and extendedness of this transitory category may also display
individual differences.
Taking all this into consideration, the study explores the factors which result in the
identification of forms of geographical common words as proper names, leading to a change of
perspective in the language users’ linguistic consciousness and a shift between categories.
In Hungarian onomastic research metonymical name-giving and metonymical name usage
have also undergone re-interpretation from a cognitive aspect (Reszegi 2009b).
 COGNITIVE APPROACHES TO HUNGARIAN TOPONYMY 5

According to the cognitive approach, metonymy can be considered a general cognitive ability
through which we are able to create associations between things and notions that are linked in one
way or the other, in this way also being able to make conclusions from one to the other. The
condition for their operation is the inconsistency of the mental representations of two contiguous
elements (the eliminated and the preserved one). Based on this, the linguistic realisation of
metonymy does not involve a change of meaning. In the case of frequent common usage it can
happen however that a meaning resulting from the context starts to be used as the meaning of a
word in the sentence—although this already constitutes a phenomenon belonging to polysemy. In
other cases, presumably, the schemes themselves are re-evaluated, coming to serve as bases for
polysemous meanings (cf. Lakoff–Johnson 1980, Lakoff 1987).
According to this approach, in the usage of toponyms, cases when a place is temporarily (or
even regularly) referred to with the name of a connected, more prominent, or more important place
can be considered manifestations of linguistic metonymy. At the same time it is not rare even
among proper names that—due to the metonymic approach or frequent usage—the meaning of a
name changes and becomes polysemous. Based on such naming patterns, new places are named
again with the name of a connected place or person. In traditional typology this is called
metonymical name-giving. However, in cognitive-minded onomastic research this process needs to
be distinguished also in relation to proper names from the manifestation of linguistic metonymy. In
the case of place names contact only constitutes a motivation for the emergence of polysemous
meanings. Therefore we need to differentiate between the naming method resulting in polysemous
meaning, defined as metonymy in structuralist name-typology, and metonymy that does not involve
change of meaning and which—relying on the use of terms from cognitive linguistics—should
rather be called metonymically motivated name-giving. The phenomenon can be compared to the
metonymically motivated emergence of polysemous common words.
Later the names that have evolved in this way as well as the adjoining cognitive schemes may
serve as basis for further name-giving acts. That is why metonymically motivated name-giving can
mostly be linked to a single act of name-giving, so the transition in the course of which the name
comes to denote another place is not a long process.
A characteristic form of metonymically motivated name-giving is when the name of a place
starts to be used to denote another place connected to it. From this aspect the semantic content of
individual name elements is not significant (transparent names can also be transferred to denote
other places, cf. Sáros-patak ’muddy brook’ > Sárospatak ’settlement at brook called Sárospatak’).
It seems, however, that through perception and cognition we process the connection between
different types of places in different ways, we interpret them differently, which obviously affects the
name-giving process too. Based on this, in certain cases we can clearly identify the metonymically
motivated name-giving, whereas in other cases a different mode of the emergence of the name
seems more likely.
Identical namings of places which—based on processes of perception and cognition—are less
closely connected, can clearly be considered examples of metonymically motivated name-giving,
 KATALIN RESZEGI 6

such as settlement names emerging from natural namings (e.g. Sárospatak, Hegyeshalom
’settlement called Hegyeshalom’ < ’piked mound’).
The names of forests and mountains clearly demonstrate the opposite case, where places
closely belong together. Examining the onomastic corpus of Hegyköz region in northern Hungary, it
seems that nowadays name-users hardly distinguish between the naming of a high ground and the
forest covering it. In most cases, a single name form is used to denote both types of places: e.g. the
names Halyagos ’covered with bladder-nut trees’ (Kováts 2000: 78), Pajna ’mountain called Pajna’
(164) or Nagy-Milic ’big mountain called Milic’ (122) refer both to the mountain and the forest
covering it. However, instead of metonymical name-giving, in this case the phenomenon is more
likely to result from the fact that, in the linguistic consciousness of the community, the two places
cannot be clearly separated from one other. The results of my own collection also seem to confirm
that very often a particular name refers to the entire hill, together with the forest covering it and the
clearing, etc. In fact, hardly ever does the need arise to distinguish between the mountain and the
forest covering it by giving them different names (cf. Reszegi 2007). As a result of the cognitive
process therefore, the individual does not sharply separate the elevation from the forest covering it,
as the two objects are in fact processed as a single denotate. This approach is also supported by the
name usage, i.e. the relationship is mutual: the names belonging together do not have separate
names, therefore the denotates are not considered separate objects either. In conclusion, with respect
to the current situation, in this case we cannot really talk about a metonymically motivated name
usage.
In the holistic-minded mental system, language and, within language, toponymic
representations constituting part of the mental lexicon, are interrelated with spatial representations.
Taking this idea as a starting point, in recent Hungarian onomastic research several studies have
highlighted a thus far neglected question of onomastics, namely the relation between the mental
map and toponyms.
The establishment and maintenance of the connection between the mental map and language
is facilitated by the fact that in addition to physical perception, linguistic stimuli also play a role in
the emergence of spatial representations: human beings grow up hearing speech about space (in
some cases certain pieces of spatial information become available to us merely through linguistic
mediation), and the notions processed in this way become incorporated into the individual’s mental
map. In this connection we should keep in mind that people become acquainted with and acquire
their knowledge about the world in a community, whose behavioural patterns and communication
deeply influence their emerging cognitive system. Therefore speech, on the one hand, mediates
spatial notions, and on the other, through the articulation of spatial information, via certain
linguistic forms with spatial reference, such as inflexions in the Hungarian language, it helps to
make individual cognitive maps—which differ due to categorisation processes—similar to one
other (Reszegi 2012).
The usage of toponyms may prove helpful in revealing the organisation of the cognitive map.
Andrea Heinrich takes this as her starting point when, examining the toponyms of a particular
settlement, she attempts to unveil the respective name users’ cognitive maps (2000). She points out
 COGNITIVE APPROACHES TO HUNGARIAN TOPONYMY 7

that the relations of the cognitive map ABOVE vs. BELOW and INSIDE vs. OUTSIDE are not
organised according to real verticality; instead, their perception is guided by some hierarchical
relation (centre and periphery). Studying the spatial-referential elements of toponyms of a particular
settlement, Mária Hochbauer (2008) also recorded that the spatial dimensions of the empirical world
are represented somewhat differently in language. The linguistic world perceives even the
horizontal as vertical, therefore in fact semantic correlations are concentrated around two poles in
the language usage of the given settlement: LOWER–INTERIOR–FRONTAL–LEFT–SMALL–
PROXIMAL vs. UPPER–EXTERIOR–REAR–RIGHT–BIG–DISTANT.
The usage of names may reflect differences between the speakers’ spatial concepts. In
Hungarian no articles are used before names of settlements, but micro-toponyms are preceded by
articles (though the reason for this fact has not been investigated yet either from traditional nor
cognitive positions). Older speakers in the settlements studied by Andrea Heinrich use the names of
the nearby locations Karoly and Liget with articles, similarly to the field names, since in their eyes
the two places with their immigrant population ‘do not qualify as real, prototypical settlements’.
However, the younger generations do not make the same distinction: similarly to the names of other
neighbouring settlements, they use also these ones without articles (2000: 9).
The concept of the cognitive map can also be applied successfully in the historic research of
toponyms. Erzsébet Győrffy studied the features of the name usage of ancient Hungarian names of
different river sections (2009) and, based on the model of the cognitive map, she concluded that the
use of the names of particular river sections was typical within certain closed communities. Thus the
names of the sections of the same stream or river do not have a synonymic relation to each other.
At the same time, based on the theory of spatial orientation, we may make some general
onomastic-theoretical conclusions. Earlier it was one of the basic assumptions of Hungarian
onomastics that toponyms are primarily used to facilitate human orientation in space. However,
according to the cognitive approach, spatial orientation does not so much depend on our knowledge
of toponyms (that is, the linking of places with names), but it presupposes storing several other
types of knowledge (such as points of orientation, directions, border-lines and distances), thus
spatial orientation is largely guided by the structure of our cognitive/mental map (the cognitive
representation of space) (cf. Heinrich 2000: 5, Reszegi 2012).
Taking into account the results of research carried out from a cognitive aspect, the need has
recently arisen in Hungarian onomastic research for a functionalist typology of toponyms that
takes into consideration both community name usage and mental processes. These are the grounds
on which István Hoffmann has reshaped his fundamental principles on the typology of toponyms.
One of his most crucial conclusions is the idea that in the course of the individual’s acquisition of
names through cognitive processing, becoming acquainted with each and every new name also
means semantic re-creation of the given name, and representation of the names may even change
during their later usage. That is to say, the pieces of semantic content expressed in names do not
directly represent the world, but our notions of the world. Should we, in turn, look upon toponyms
as part of the mental system, the historic justification for semantic motivation loses its relevance
(2012).
 KATALIN RESZEGI 8

Conclusions
As the above outline shows, the cognitive approach has been applied rather successfully in
Hungarian onomastic research. At the same time, the results go beyond the scope of Hungarian
onomastic research and, I believe, some aspects of onomastic theory and methodology can be used
even at an international level in onomastic research.

References
Barabás András & Kálmán C. György & Nádasdy Ádám. 1977. Van-e a magyarban tulajdonnév?
Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 79, 135–155.
Bényei Ágnes. 2007. Helynévképzők a fiktív nevek körében. Névtani Értesítő 29, 57–63.
Győrffy Erzsébet. 2009. A többnevűség és a szakasznevek folyóvízneveink körében.
Helynévtörténeti tanulmányok 4, 105–113.
Heinrich Andrea. 2000. Szaniszló helynevei kognitív nyelvészeti megközelítésben. Manuscript.
Szakdolgozat. Kolozsvár.
Hochbauer Mária. 2008. Helyzetviszonyító elemek a barcasági Négyfalu helynévrendszerében. In:
Bölcskei Andrea & N. Császi Ildikó ed. Név és valóság. (A VI. Magyar Névtudományi
Konferencia előadásai). A Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem Magyar Nyelvtudományi
Tanszékének Kiadványai 1. Budapest. 164–169.
Hoffmann István. 1993. Helynevek nyelvi elemzése. A Debreceni Kossuth Lajos Tudományegyetem
Magyar Nyelvtudományi Intézetének Kiadványai 61. Debrecen.
Hoffmann István. 2012. Funkcionális nyelvészet és helynévkutatás. Magyar Nyelvjárások 50. In
print.
Kertész Manó. 1939. A magyar helynévadás történetéből. Magyar Nyelvőr 68, 33–39, 67–77.
Kováts Dániel. 2000. Az abaúji Hegyköz helynevei. A Sátoraljaújhelyi Kazinczy Ferenc Múzeum
Füzetei 4. Sátoraljaújhely.
Ladányi Mária. 1998. Jelentésváltozás és grammatikalizáció — kognitív és szerves nyelvészeti
keretben. Magyar Nyelv 94, 407–423.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the
Mind. Chicago–London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago–London: The University
of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2. Descriptive Application.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lőrincze Lajos. 1947. Földrajzineveink élete. Budapest: Néptudományi Intézet.
Reszegi Katalin. 2007. A hegynevek és más helynévfajták kapcsolata. In: Hoffmann István &
Juhász Dezső ed. Nyelvi identitás és a nyelv dimenziói. Debrecen–Budapest: Nemzetközi
Magyarságtudományi Társaság. 37–43.
 COGNITIVE APPROACHES TO HUNGARIAN TOPONYMY 9

Reszegi Katalin. 2008. A hegynév terminus definiálása. In: Bölcskei Andrea & N. Császi Ildikó ed.
Név és valóság. (A VI. Magyar Névtudományi Konferencia előadásai). A Károli Gáspár
Református Egyetem Magyar Nyelvtudományi Tanszékének Kiadványai 1. Budapest. 240–
246.
Reszegi Katalin. 2009a. A jelentéshasadás mint helynévalkotási mód. Helynévtörténeti tanulmányok
4, 35–45.
Reszegi Katalin. 2009b. A kognitív szemlélet a helynévkutatásban. A metonimikus névadás.
Magyar Nyelvjárások 47, 21–41.
Reszegi Katalin. 2012. A mentális térkép és a helynevek. In: Mentális folyamatok a nyelvi
feldolgozásban. Pszicholingvisztikai tanulmányok 3: 95-100.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In: Rosch, Eleanor & Barbara B. Lloyd eds.
Cognition and Categorization. New York: Halsted Press. 27–48.
Tolcsvai Nagy Gábor. 2008. A tulajdonnév jelentése. In: Bölcskei Andrea & N. Császi Ildikó eds.
Név és valóság. A Károli Gáspár Református Egyetem Magyar Nyelvtudományi Tanszékének
Kiadványai 1. Budapest. 30–41.
Van Langendonck, Willy. 1999. Neurolinguistic and syntactic evidence for basic level meaning in
proper names. Functions of Language 6/1, 95–138.
Van Langendonck, Willy. 2007. Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Trends in Linguistics 168.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Katalin Reszegi
University of Debrecen Department of Hungarian Linguistics
Egyetem tér 1.
4032 Debrecen, Hungary
kataszakall@gmail.com

Summary: Cognitive approaches to Hungarian toponymy

Hungarian onomastic research has always been open to other areas of linguistics, as well as to ways
of thinking and results of related study fields. The psychological viewpoint already appeared in
studies in the 1940s. However, as a general theoretical framework, the cognitive approach appeared
in Hungarian onomastics only as late as the early 21st century. Nevertheless, over this short period
of time it has been applied successfully in numerous fields of onomastic research. In my paper I
review how the cognitive approach is used in Hungarian onomastic research and consider the results
of applying the cognitive view: with connection the problem of grammatical categorisation of word-
classes and meaning; the typology of toponyms; the metonymical name-giving and metonymical
name usage; the relation between the mental map and toponyms; the functionalist typology of
toponyms.
 KATALIN RESZEGI 10

Résumé: Approches cognitives de la toponymie hongroise

La recherche onomastique hongroise a toujours été ouverte aux autres domaines de la linguistique,
de même qu’aux méthodologies et résultats des champs d’études connexes. Le point de vue
psychologique est déjà apparu dans nos études dans les années 1940. Toutefois, en tant que cadre
théorique général, l’approche cognitive n’est pas apparue dans l’onomastique hongroise avant le
début des années 2000. Nonobstant, pendant ce court laps de temps, elle a été appliquée avec succès
dans de nombreux champs de la recherche onomastique. Dans cet article, j’étudie comment
l’approche cognitive est employée dans la recherche onomastique hongroise et ses résultats : en
relation avec la question de la catégorisation grammaticale des classes de mots et du sémantisme ; la
typologie des toponymes ; la nomination métonymique et l’emploi des noms métonymiques ; la
relation entre carte mentale et toponymes ; la typologie fonctionnaliste des toponymes.

Zusammenfassung: Kognitive Ansätze zur ungarischen Toponymie

Die ungarische Namenforschung ist stets offen für andere Bereiche der Sprachwissenschaft
gewesen, wie auch für die Denkweisen und Ergebnisse benachbarter Disziplinen. Der
psychologische Standpunkt war bereits in Studien der 1940er Jahre aufgetaucht; doch als
allgemeines theoretisches Gerüst erschien der kognitive Ansatz als erst zu Beginn des 21.
Jahrhunderts. Trotzdem ist er seither in dieser kurzen Zeit auf zahlreichen Gebieten der Onomastik
erfolgreich angewandt worden. In meinem Beitrag gebe ich einen Überblick über die Arten der
Verwendung dieses kognitiven Ansatzes in der ungarischen Namenforschung und untersuche die
Ergebnisse der kognitiven Sichtweise: in Zusammenhang mit der Frage der Kategorisierung von
Wortklassen und ihrer Semantik sowie der Typologie der Ortsnamen; in Bezug auf die
metonymische Namengebung und den metonymischen Namengebrauch; auf das Verhältnis
zwischen kognitiver Landkarte und Ortsnamen; sowie schließlich auf die funktionalistische
Typologie der Toponyme.

View publication stats