Religionym and confessionym
| Part of a series on |
| Linguistics |
|---|
 Portal |
Religionym (from
proper names that designate religious adherents (like: Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims). In scholarly literature, both terms (religionym and confessionym) are sometimes also used in much broader meaning, as designations for all terms that are semantically related to religious (confessional) terminology.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
In the English-speaking world,
lexical corpus that encompasses various words, terms and expressions that are related to the religious sphere of life is most commonly referred to as religious lexis, or religious lexicon.[9]
Those linguistic terms cover all of those widest meanings that were occasionally assigned (by some authors) to the terms religionym and confessionym, thus relieving them of such general uses, and consequently allowing the standardization of more specific uses for both of those terms.
In recent years, several scholarly attempts were made in order to differentiate between the existing uses, and thus define the preferred meanings of those terms, but no general agreement has been reached among scholars, and the use of both terms continues to depend on the context given to them by individual authors, in accordance with their preferred terminological traditions.[10][11]
The problem of linguistic standardization of various
onomastic terms. Such issues have gained importance in scholarly circles, since international surveys among experts revealed the existence of similar challenging issues, related to the process of terminological standardization within the field.[12]
See also
References
- ^ Seiwert 1982, p. 123-124.
- ^ Bromley 1984, p. 11.
- ^ Wodak 2001, p. 82.
- ^ Reisigl & Wodak 2001, p. 50, 68, 114, 116.
- ^ Brechelmacher 2002, p. 295.
- ^ Wolf 2005, p. 126-127.
- ^ Zaynullin & Khabibullina 2017, p. 285-291.
- ^ Adamczak-Krysztofowicz & Szczepaniak-Kozak 2017, p. 298.
- ^ Chase 1988.
- ^ Balkanski 2012, p. 9–16.
- ^ Pawlas 2019, p. 35–47.
- ^ Harvalík & Caffarelli 2007, p. 181-220.
Sources
- Adamczak-Krysztofowicz, Sylwia; Szczepaniak-Kozak, Anna (2017). "A disturbing view of intercultural communication: Findings of a study into hate speech in Polish" (PDF). Linguistica Silesiana. 38: 285–310.
- Balkanski, Teodor (2012). "À propos de la grouponymie" (PDF). Studii şi Cercetări de Onomasticăşi Lexicologie. 5 (1–2): 9–16.
- Brechelmacher, Angelika (2002). "Identity by way of demarcation - the discourse on the expansion of the European Union in Austria's leading daily papers". Us and Others: Social Identities Across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 293–320. ISBN 1588112055.
- Bromley, Yulian V. (1984). Theoretical Ethnography. Moscow: Nauka.
- Chase, Thomas (1988). The English Religious Lexis. Lewiston: EMP. ISBN 9780889468269.
- Harvalík, Milan; Caffarelli, Enzo, eds. (2007). "Onomastic Terminology: An International Survey" (PDF). Rivista Italiana di Onomastica. 13 (1): 181–220.
- Pawlas, Szymon (2019). "Konfesjonimia, czyli o terminologii dotyczącej wyznań" (PDF). Acta Philologica. 55: 35–47.
- Reisigl, Martin; ISBN 9781134579570.
- Room, Adrian (1996). An Alphabetical Guide to the Language of Name Studies. Lanham and London: The Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810831698.
- Seiwert, Wolf-Dieter (1982). "Ethnonyme in der Westsahara: Struktur und Aussage". Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift. 23: 121–137.
- ISBN 9783205993421.
- Wolf, Markus (2005). Žid - Kritik einer Wortverbannung: Imagologie Israels zwischen staatspolitischem Kalkül und künstlerischer Verfremdung. München: Sagner. ISBN 9783876909059.
- Zaynullin, Gabdulzyamil G.; Khabibullina, Alfiya M. (2017). "Stylistic Features of Comment in Arabic Blogosphere". Journal of History Culture and Art Research. 6 (5): 285–291. .