CONSIDERATION OF GENDER PORTRAIT OF THE CITY BY MEANS OF GODONIMS FROM THE POSITION OF ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

Mikhailova S.V.

Moscow City Pedagogical University
Moscow, Russia
e-mail: mihailovasv@mgpu.ru

The study of urban space through the prism of its nomination is an important area in modern linguistics, particularly within the cognitive, psycho-, and sociolinguistic paradigms. Of particular interest is the analysis yearоnimov – urban toponyms (names of streets, squares, alleys), since they not only perform the function of spatial orientation, but also reflect the cultural, historical and ideological attitudes of society.

It should be noted that according to the classic «Dictionary of Russian Onomastic Terminology» [10], there are two variants of writing this term – godonym (we will stick to this option in the future) and odonym^[1]; we also encounter similar correlations in foreign onomastics. We emphasize that our analysis of the literature on this issue led us to the following comparative conclusion: in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the variant is more frequent hodonym, how odonym, and in French-speaking odonyme is interpreted as the main spelling norm, whereas hodonyme is presented as a possible spelling (and is not even included in the authoritative electronic dictionary National Center for Text and Lexical Resources, CNRTL^[2], https://www.cnrtl.fr/). At the same time, from the point of view of pronunciation, the English-language «alleles» differ in the isolated position (h aspirated / o), and the French-language ones in the isolated position sound the same and are differentiated only in conditions of segmental connection (liaison) with a preceding article.

We also noted rare cases of writing in the English-language scientific literature godonym; These were articles written in English by authors whose native languages were, for example, Portuguese, Uzbek, or Russian (the latter when translating the abstract and title into English). We pay such close attention to the lack of uniformity in spelling because spelling variations in a term can not only complicate the search for sources on hononymy but also lead to distorted data when conducting analytical research on the relevance of the topic.

And another interesting, in our opinion, observation: in linguistic studies, English- and French-speaking authors resort to the above-mentioned terms of Greek origin, whereas in works of sociology and urban studies in the corresponding languages, descriptive terminology prevails – street name, nom de rue.

In the work of L.V. Egorova [5], we find a profound understanding of the history of Russian godonyms since the inception of this field in the 1970s. In this article, we will focus on aspects of research into the names of urban units (streets, squares, parks, etc.) not considered by the author and will outline the importance of godonyms as objects of study from the perspective of organizational psycholinguistics and from the perspective of genderology.

Cognitive onomastics examines the process of toponym formation as a result of speakers' conceptualization of reality. V.V. Alpatov points out that naming frames play a key role in the formation of toponymic consciousness, where a name results from the interpretation of a specific spatial object through the prism of cultural and individual knowledge [1]. We believe it is necessary to further develop the cognitive approach to onomastics, including the study of gender stereotypes enshrined in urbanonyms, which is driven by an ongoing interest in issues of gender equality, collective identity, and commemorative representation in the urban environment. Godonyms can be viewed as frame constructs that activate specific mental models associated with the image of a city, its history, and significant figures. For example, the mention of a street named after Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya evokes a frame of war heroine, sacrifice, and female courage, while a street named after Lermontov evokes a frame of literary genius, romantic solitude, and the struggle with authority.

The sociolinguistic approach to the study of urban nomination includes the consideration of the semiotic landscape as a multicultural and politically significant space. O.A. Suleimanova and D.D. Kholodova [13] noted that the urban navigation system (using Moscow as an example) faces the task of multicultural modeling of the city’s image, where language plays a key role in shaping its perception. The main goal of urban nominations is to facilitate spatial orientation, but they are also used for its symbolic representation. The study of orientation patterns, as well as selected denominative or ideological themes, allows for a better knowledge and understanding of cities and the phases of their development [14]. L.G. Vikulova, E.F. Serebrennikova, and I.V. Makarova [4] defined interculturalemes in the urban landscape as elements of collective knowledge demonstrating changes in the perception of history and culture. N.A. Razlivinskaya and I.V. Tivyaeva [11] consider commemorative practices as a way of consolidating historical memory in urban space. In this regard, godonyms become not just a means of designating space, but also an element of ideological and cultural communication, and the linguistic planning of urban spaces, the objectifying imposition/reproduction/confirmation/denial of sociolinguistic and urban memory [Bulot, 2005] can be gender-loaded.

Contemporary studies of urbanonymy in Russia emphasize that the toponymic design of cities serves as a powerful tool for conveying regional identity [12]. However, the question of how this identity is expressed through the gender specificity of godonyms remains understudied, although the latter serve as an important indicator of gender representation in urban topography. Research by international authors [18; 19; 20] shows that female names are significantly less represented in the street network than male ones, indicating a systemic undervaluation of women's contribution to history and culture, a certain gender imbalance in urban nomination, and the marginalization of female anthroponyms in the city's topography.

These ideas can also be applied to the analysis of gender components in the urban nomination based on the understanding of the multifactorial nature of communication in conditions of collective interaction both at the level of speech production and at the level of speech perception [3; 8], which forms the basis of a new direction in psycholinguistics.

Organizational psycholinguistics, as S.V. Myskin [9] notes, studies language not only as a means of communication, but also as a tool for organizing human activity and interaction in professional and social environments, as a factor in structuring reality, regulating behavior, forming meanings, and organizing collective action. In the context of urbanonym analysis, this perspective allows us to consider urban toponymy as a system of communicative organization of space that influences the perception, behavior, and identity of city residents. We offer the following generalization.^[3] functional and substantive description of hodonyms from the standpoint of organizational psycholinguistics (Table 1).

Table 1

Functions of hodonyms from the point of view of organizational psycholinguistics

Godonym function	Interpretation of the function: hodonyms…
An organizational unit, a tool for managing and regulating social interaction	— … ensure the structural development of urban space, allowing residents to navigate it; — … serve as cognitive markers that help build mental maps of the city; — … facilitate the coordination of everyday activities of city residents (for example, addressing, route planning, organizing delivery, etc.) —
A means of social coordination	…form common semantic fields, on the basis of which city residents (and visitors) can understand each other; …create collective memory, by fixing in space names and events that are significant for society; … serve as a symbolic resource for expressing the values, priorities and historical identity of the city
Part of the communication strategy of (municipal) authorities	…are instruments of legitimization of power, since the choice of certain names can reflect the current ideology; … serve as a means of transmitting values that the authorities consider significant for society; …are the subject of discussions and negotiations between the authorities and city residents in the event of renaming or other initiatives

Thus, in this scientific paradigm, hodonyms areоshould be considered as elements of the linguistic organization of social life, where each name of a street or square performs not only a nominative function, but also participates in the social organization of perception, memory and identity, including in terms of the gender portrayal of the city. We agree with the opinion of French sociologists [16]: linguistic and speech norms are not givens, but a product of use that is constantly reproduced and / or deconstructed in a collective or individual continuum, and, as a consequence, discursive spaces are also not givens, but rather discursive products (like the norms themselves). Urban space is perceived by an individual as a complex of stimuli that undergo cognitive processing and form an internal representation of the city, influencing his (the individual's) behavior. This individual and collective cognitive representation structures and organizes urban space in the minds of people, determining their actions and social practices [17].

Let us note that the absence or insufficient number of female toponyms in godonyms reflects social, cultural, and historical notions of gender roles in society. It is associated with the marginalization of women in history, the systemic disregard for women's contributions to the development of society and culture, and creates a certain lack of women's symbolic presence in urban space. This, in turn, influences the formation of presuppositions in the city's collective discourse and individual speech practices, serving as an indicator of social organizational processes and municipal decision-making., requiring careful linguistic, psycholinguistic and gender analysis, as well as possible adjustments to eliminate discriminatory communication within the urban space.

Thus, a review of existing research allows us to conclude that the issues of gender portrayal of the city by means of hodonyms lie at the intersection of several scientific disciplines: linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociology, urban studies, cultural studies, and gender studies. However, this aspect remains underdeveloped in Russian scholarship. Of interest is the use of a cognitive approach to toponymy in combination with methods of psycho- and sociolinguistics, gender analysis, to identify the hidden meanings inherent in urban nominations, conventional speech implicatures, both nationally [7] and gender-determined [6]. A promising direction could be a comparative analysis of hodonyms in different Russian cities in terms of the presence of female names on the city map, their frequency, typology (war heroines, artists, scientists, etc.), and context of use. Also relevant is the study of city residents' reactions to possible changes in the toponymic landscape, for example, to initiatives to rename streets in honor of women.

Literature

1. Alpatov V.V. Cognitive foundations of toponym formation: the naming frame // Bulletin of Tambov University. Series: Humanities. 2006. No. 4 (44). P. 486–488.
2. Alpatov V.V., Chukarkova O.V., Michugina S.V. Cognitive onomastics: some results and prospects // Issues of cognitive linguistics. 2024. No. 3. pp. 42–58. DOI 10.20916/1812-3228-2024-3-42-58.
3. Vashunina I.V. Gender aspect of professional communication // Organizational psycholinguistics. 2018. No. 2 (2). P. 19–30.
4. Vikulova L.G., Serebrennikova E.F., Makarova I.V. Interculturalemes in the Urban Semiotic Landscape of Yaroslavl as Indicators of 'Divided' Knowledge in the Era of Globalization // Yaroslavl Text in the Space of Dialogue of Cultures: Proceedings of the Third All-Russian Scientific Conference, Yaroslavl, April 10–11, 2018 / Comp. and ed. O. N. Skibinskaya, T. K. Khovrina. Yaroslavl: Yaroslavl State Pedagogical Univ. named after K. D. Ushinsky, 2018. pp. 308–313.
5. Egorova L.V. On the issue of studying hodonyms in the modern paradigm of linguistic research // Bulletin of the Chuvash University. 2018. No. 2. pp. 224–233.
6. Mikhailova S.V. Feminine identity and the ways of its objectification in the artistic discourse of the 17th century: author's abstract. dis. … cand. philological sciences: 10.02.19 "Theory of language". Moscow, 2012. 24 p.
7. Mikhailova S.V. Nationally determined specificity of the gastic component of non-verbal communication in works of French fiction // Organizational psycholinguistics. 2024. No. 3 (27). P. 52–66.
8. Myskin S.V. Features of perception of social life by subjects of joint professional activity // Bulletin of the Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V.P. Astafiev (Bulletin of KSPU). 2014. No. 4 (30). P. 132–139.
9. Myskin S.V. The concept of organizational psycholinguistics // Bulletin of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities. 2019. No. 4 (820). P. 11–22.
10. Podolskaya N.V. Dictionary of Russian onomastic terminology. Moscow: Nauka, 1978.
11. Razlivinskaya N.A., Tivyaeva I.V. Commemorative practices in the discursive space of the city: historical and political aspect // Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics. 2021. No. 4. pp. 104–113. DOI 10.29025/2079-6021-2021-4-104-113.
12. Razumov R.V., Goryaev S.O. Translation of regional identity in the urbanonymy of Russian cities: current state // Questions of Onomastics. 2020. Vol. 17. No. 2. pp. 201–219. DOI: 10.15826/vopr_onom.2020.17.2.024.
13. Suleimanova O.A., Kholodova D.D. The Moscow City Navigation System as a Problem of Multicultural Modeling of the Linguistic Image of the City // English Studies at NBU. 2015. Vol. 1, No. 1. Pp. 97–115.
14. Badariotti D. Les noms de rue en geographie. Plaidoyer pour une recherche sur les odonymes // Annales de Géographie. 2002. Vol. 111. No. 625. R. 285–302. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23456059.
15. Bulot Th. Discours épilinguistique et discours topologique: une approche des rapports entre signalétique et confinement linguistique en sociolinguistique urbaine // Revue de l'Université de Moncton. 2005. Vol. 36. No. 1. R. 219–253. https://doi.org/10.7202/011994ar.
16. Bulot T., Ledegen G. Langues et espaces Normes identitaires et urbanisation // Cahiers de sociolinguistique. 2008. No. 13 (1). R. 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3917/csl.0801.0005.
17. Fauteux M. Représentation de la ville // Cahiers de géographie du Québec. 1977. Vol. 21, No. 2. R. 83–103. https://doi.org/10.7202/021354ar.
18. Giraut F. Contre la sous-resentation des femmes dans les noms de rues: géopolitique d'une mobilization contemporaine multiforme // Blog Neotoponymie. 2014. http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:35100.
19. Montebello C., Piguet L., Piguet M. Actualités du passé: des femmes dans les rues // Passé Simple. 2020. No. 67. R. 34–35.
20. Ouali N., et al. Les femmes dans le nom des rues bruxelloises. Topographie d'une minorisation // Brussels Studies. Collection general. 2021. Document 154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/brussels.5376.

References

1. Alpatov VV. Cognitive bases of toponym formation: the naming frame // Vestnik of Tambovskogo University. Series: Humanities. 2006. No. 4 (44). pp. 486-488. (In Russian)
2. Alpatov VV, Chukar'kova OV, Michugina SV. Cognitive onomastics: some results and perspectives // Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki. 2024. No. 3. pp. 42-58. DOI 10.20916/1812-3228-2024-3-42-58. (In Russian)
3. Badariotti D. Les noms de rue en geographie. Plaidoyer pour une recherche sur les odonymes // Annales de Géographie. 2002. Vol. 111.No. 625. pp. 285-302. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23456059.
4. Bulot Th. Discours épilinguistique et discours topologique: une approche des rapports entre signalétique et confinement linguistique en sociolinguistique urbaine // Revue de l'Université de Moncton. 2005. Vol. 36.No. 1.Pp. 219-253. https://doi.org/10.7202/011994ar.
5. Bulot Th., Ledegen G. Langues et espaces Normes identitaires et urbanisation // Cahiers de sociolinguistique. 2008. No. 13(1). pp. 5-14. https://doi.org/10.3917/csl.0801.0005.
6. Egorova LV. On the study of hodonyms in the modern paradigm of linguistic research // Vestnik of the Chuvash University. 2018. No. 2. pp. 224-233. (In Russian)
7. Fauteux M. Représentation de la ville // Cahiers de géographie du Québec. 1997. Vol. 21.No. 2.Pp. 83-103. https://doi.org/10.7202/021354ar.
8. Giraut F. Contre la sous-resentation des femmes dans les noms de rues: géopolitique d'une mobilization contemporaine multiforme // Blog Neotoponymie. 2014. http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:35100.
9. Mikhailova SV. Feminine identity and ways of its objectification in the artistic discourse of the 17th century: author's note. dis. … cand. filol. sciences: 10.02.19 "Teoriya yazyka". Moscow, 2012. 24 p. (In Russian)
10. Mikhailova SV. Nationally determined specificity of the gastronomic component of nonverbal communication in works of French fiction // Organizational psycholinguistics. 2024. No. 3 (27). pp. 52-66. (In Russian)
11. Montebello C., Piguet L., Piguet M. Actualités du passé: des femmes dans les rues // Passé Simple. 2020. No. 67. pp. 34-35.
12. Myskin SV. Features of the perception of social life by subjects of joint professional activity // Bulletin of the Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V. P. Astafyev (Vestnik KGPU). 2014. No. 4 (30). pp. 132-139. (In Russian)
13. Myskin SV. The concept of organizational psycholinguistics // Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities. 2019. No. 4 (820). pp. 11-22. (In Russian)
14. Ouali N., et al. Les femmes dans le nom des rues bruxelloises. Topographie d'une minorisation // Brussels Studies. Collection general. 2021. Document 154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/brussels.5376.
15. Podolskaya NV. Dictionary of Russian Onomastic Terminology. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. (In Russian)
16. Razlivinskaya NA, Tivyaeva IV. Commemorative practices in the discursive space of the city: historical and political aspect // Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics. 2021. No. 4. pp. 104-113. (In Russian)
17. Razumov RV, Goryaev SO. Transmission of regional identity in the urbanonymy of Russian cities: current state // Voprosy onomastics. 2020. Vol. 17. No. 2. pp. 201-219. DOI: 10.15826/vopr_onom.2020.17.2.024. (In Russian)
18. Sulejmanova OA, Holodova DD. Moscow city navigation system as a problem of multicultural modeling of the linguistic image of the city // English Studies at NBU. 2015. Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 97-115. (In Russian)
19. Vashunina IV. Gender aspect of professional communication // Organizational psychology. 2018. No. 2 (2). pp. 19-30. (In Russian)
20. Vikulova LG, Serebrennikova EF, Makarova IV. Intercultures in the urban semiotic landscape of Yaroslavl as indicators of 'divided' knowledge of the globalization era // Yaroslavl text in the space of the dialogue of cultures: Proceedings of the Third All-Russian Scientific Conference, Yaroslavl, April 10-11, 2018 / Compilers and editors: O. N. Skibinskaya, T. K. Khovrina. Yaroslavl: Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky, 2018. pp. 308-313. (In Russian)

[1] It was in this spelling, according to L.V. Egorova [2018, p. 224], that this terminological unit first appeared in Russian (Soviet) linguistics, as we believe, under the influence of the Francophone onomastic tradition.

[2] Center national des resources textuelles et lexicales – a platform lexicographic solution and a set of computerized language processing tools within a single portal, developed by the leading state scientific institution of France, the National Center for Scientific Research (Center national de la recherche scientifique, CNRS, https://www.cnrs.fr).

[3] This generalization is open-ended: we believe that subsequent research in the field of organizational psycholinguistics as applied to urban onomastics will complement our initial findings.