Hoffmann, IstvánNemes, Magdolna2009-03-092009-03-092005http://hdl.handle.net/2437/79620A magyar nyelvtudományban nagy hagyományai vannak azoknak a kutatásoknak, melyek a szókincs egy jól körülhatárolható részét veszik nagyító alá. Ezek a kutatások többféle tanulsággal járhatnak, mivel egy jól meghatározott, szemantikai szempontból egynemű szócsoport kiváló terepet nyújt különböző nyelvi vizsgálatokhoz. Dolgozatom témájául a magyar földrajzi köznevek vizsgálatát választottam. Ennek a nyelvi rétegnek az elemzését azért tartom lényeges feladatnak, mert olyan területen végez nyelvészeti kutatást, melyen ilyen jellegű, rendszeres vizsgálatok alig folytak. Ez különösen annak ismeretében feltűnő, hogy e szavak a magyar nyelv helynévállományában is igen fontos szerepet játszanak, valamint nyelvünk első írásos forrásaiban is bőségesen találunk földrajzi közneveket (utu, kutu, azo stb.). A névtudomány kezdetén a tulajdonnevek, ezen belül a helynevek kutatása elsősorban etimológiai irányultságú volt, és a helynevekben szereplő földrajzi közneveknek kevesebb figyelem jutott. Ez összefüggésbe hozható a kutatások történeti érdeklődésével is. A helyzet megváltozását a rendszeres helynévgyűjtés megindulásával, így az élőnyelvi adatok felhalmozódásával hozhatjuk összefüggésbe. Végigtekintve a földrajzi köznevek nemzetközi kutatásának folyamatán megállapítható, hogy a legmeghatározóbb forrástípust a nagy adatbázisok jelentik. Nagy mennyiségű adat elemzésére vállalkoztak amerikai, belga és finn kutatók is. A földrajzi különbségek következetes figyelembevétele és a földrajzi köznév választását befolyásoló nyelvi tényezők sokaságának felismerése egyre árnyaltabbá tette a kérdéskör megközelítését. Egy terület névanyagának alapos ismerete több esetben is igen jó háttérnek bizonyult általános eredmények bemutatásához, így például a Rhode Island-i földrajzi köznevek elemzése alapként szolgált e szócsoport univerzális jegyeinek megfogalmazásához. A földrajzi köznevek kutatásának alakulása tehát az általános érvényűnek gondolt értelmezések felől egyre inkább az egyes részterületeket bemutató leírások felé halad. Ez nem jelenti azonban azt, hogy a kutatók lemondanának a földrajziköznév-rendszer általános leírásának igényéről. In Hungarian linguistic studies research into well defined areas of the vocabulary has rich traditions. Since a semantically homogeneous group of words is particularly suitable for linguistic investigation, such research can yield several various results. In my dissertation I set the aim to investigate geographical appellatives in Hungarian. As this layer of the language has hardly been systematically studied, the importance of such work cannot be overemphasized. The scarcity of this kind of research is all the more surprising because geographical appellatives are amply represented in the earliest written records of our language (utu ’road’, kutu ’well’, azo ’dry’, etc.). At the initial stage of onomastic studies research was almost exclusively focused on proper names with place names (toponyms) having been paid primary attention, which was mainly due to a general historical approach. This situation changed after place names began to be collected on a regular basis, which also brought about the accumulation of data taken from live language use. Any survey of international research into geographical appellatives will reveal that large databases represent the main type of source. A huge amount of data have been analysed by American, Belgian and Finnish researchers. It can be observed that the methods of research have been refined upon by the growing attention to linguistic factors influencing the choice of a geographical appellative as well as by a consistent consideration of geographical differences. The thorough study of the names occurring in an area has proved to be remarkably instrumental to the presentation of certain general results. Thus, the analysis of the geographical appellatives of Rhode Island contributed to the formulation of their universal markers (MILLWARD 1972a). It can also be inferred that the trend of research into geographical appellatives is gradually turning from a general interpretation of phenomena to describing particular details. This, however, does not mean that attempts to give an overall view the system of geographical appellatives have been abandoned. In Hungarian onomastics, the collection of geographical names started in the 1960s gave an impetus to the study of geographical appellatives, which resulted in their being attributed a growing significance. Attempts at their classification have always been in the focus of interest. Another important field of research is their semantics and dialectal provenance. Although the differences between place names (toponyms) and geographical appellatives have been thoroughly studied both in Hungarian and international specialist literature, the term ’geographical appellative’ has not yet been unequivocally defined in onomastics. It is relatively easy to make a distinction between the two categories in an intuitive way, but it is much more difficult to formulate the features they differ in at the level of theory. No wonder that the theoretical aspects of the question have recently been examined by linguists as well as onomasticians. In Hungarian linguistic studies research into well defined areas of the vocabulary has rich traditions. Since a semantically homogeneous group of words is particularly suitable for linguistic investigation, such research can yield several various results. In my dissertation I set the aim to investigate geographical appellatives in Hungarian. As this layer of the language has hardly been systematically studied, the importance of such work cannot be overemphasized. The scarcity of this kind of research is all the more surprising because geographical appellatives are amply represented in the earliest written records of our language (utu ’road’, kutu ’well’, azo ’dry’, etc.). At the initial stage of onomastic studies research was almost exclusively focused on proper names with place names (toponyms) having been paid primary attention, which was mainly due to a general historical approach. This situation changed after place names began to be collected on a regular basis, which also brought about the accumulation of data taken from live language use. Any survey of international research into geographical appellatives will reveal that large databases represent the main type of source. A huge amount of data have been analysed by American, Belgian and Finnish researchers. It can be observed that the methods of research have been refined upon by the growing attention to linguistic factors influencing the choice of a geographical appellative as well as by a consistent consideration of geographical differences. The thorough study of the names occurring in an area has proved to be remarkably instrumental to the presentation of certain general results. Thus, the analysis of the geographical appellatives of Rhode Island contributed to the formulation of their universal markers (MILLWARD 1972a). It can also be inferred that the trend of research into geographical appellatives is gradually turning from a general interpretation of phenomena to describing particular details. This, however, does not mean that attempts to give an overall view the system of geographical appellatives have been abandoned. In Hungarian onomastics, the collection of geographical names started in the 1960s gave an impetus to the study of geographical appellatives, which resulted in their being attributed a growing significance. Attempts at their classification have always been in the focus of interest. Another important field of research is their semantics and dialectal provenance. Although the differences between place names (toponyms) and geographical appellatives have been thoroughly studied both in Hungarian and international specialist literature, the term ’geographical appellative’ has not yet been unequivocally defined in onomastics. It is relatively easy to make a distinction between the two categories in an intuitive way, but it is much more difficult to formulate the features they differ in at the level of theory. No wonder that the theoretical aspects of the question have recently been examined by linguists as well as onomasticians.400 p.huföldrajzi köznevekgeographical appellativesNyelvtudományokBölcsészettudományok