Language contact and ‘the Catch’: Norfolk Island fishing ground names

Nash, Joshua

doi:10.1080/00291951.2015.1110197

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11–12, 1958; see also Magner, 1958), it was used in regional onomastic studies (among many others, Ahmanova, 1967; Mikrotoponymiya, 1964; Nikonov, 1965; Šmilauer, 1963). Consequently, defined as a “name referring to smaller objects like fields, pastures, fences, stones, marshes, bogs, ditches, etc., and in general used locally by only a limited group of people” (The International Council of Onomastic Science, n. d.), “the name of a natural or (less commonly) manmade object used by a local community who lives near it” (Room, 1996, p. 63) or, “the name of smaller places known to a smaller set of people (usually locals)” (Perono Cacciafoco & Cavallaro, 2023, p. 4), the term microtoponym is now generally accepted among the linguists‐onomasticians and other social scientists worldwide (among others, Berezkina, 2014; Bigon et al., 2022; Caffarelli, 2022; Cott, 2015; David, 2016; Gałkowski & Gliwa, 2014; Mrózek, 1990; Nash, 2016, 2017; Perono Cacciafoco & Cavallaro, 2017; Podolskaya, 1988; Racca, 2019; Siegfried, 2018; Tent, 2014, 2015; Tort‐Donada, 2015). 1…”

Section: Defining Microtoponymmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problematizing urban microtoponyms

Basik

2023

Geography Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A spatial perspective on microtoponyms, informal non‐standardized names of small objects and places known to the locals, is an often‐neglected segment of urban political toponymic theory and practice. Though critically‐oriented thinkers have acknowledged the role of vernacular place names in the spatial organization of symbolic cultural landscapes, place‐making processes, and the everyday life of people and their communities, conceptual spatial‐political theorizations on this subject have been relatively rare. Driven upon the critical toponymic theory, this paper aims to delineate a conceptual framework for studying urban microtoponyms as spatial phenomena by integrating the toponymic plurality notion. Based on examples primarily from non‐Western geographical contexts, this paper offers a fresh perspective on urban place naming practices and related spatial processes providing some analytical pathways for critical scholars in urban toponymy and guiding potential empirical investigations in this field.

show abstract