.png)
UDC 811.161.1`27
Fedotova Tatyana V.,
Doctor of Philology, Docent,
Professor of the Russian and Speech Communication Department
Kuban State Agrarian University named after I.T. Trubilin
e-mail: fedotova66@mail.ru
The article discusses the main problems that the nominee has in the naming process. The main attitude is that future specialists, creating their name, primarily seek to express their own perception of onim without thinking about the consumer. The study is based on an analysis of hypothetical (potential) proper names (names) obtained as a result of a questionnaire of future lawyers. Using the example of collected names, it was possible to identify and describe the main errors made by nominees when creating the names of their own enterprises. It has been proven that in addition to originality, transparency of the name in terms of field of activity, memorability, the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance is the main cognitive mechanism for creating exotic names. The analysis of the collected onyms made it possible to identify several directions focused on the relationship between the cognitive-mental characteristics of the nominee and the recipient’s reflection. The following processes were attributed to such areas: standard onimization; word-forming creativity; case studies; foreign language creative naming. As a conclusion, we can state that future lawyers, like many nominees of existing organizations, are not only unfamiliar with the naming criteria, but also explicate absolute indifference towards customers and the consumer. The main violations of naming include: lack of communicative targeting; indifference to the consumer; creating names with fuzzy semantics (abbreviations, foreign-language words), as well as the use of precedent onyms that lead to the creation of cognitive dissonance in the chipper; impaired associative capabilities of onym. The result of the study is the conclusion that the study of the basic requirements and criteria for naming is the implementation of an integrated approach in the study of not only the creative capabilities of linguistics, but also the cultural-specific values of Russia.
Keywords: naming, communication, proper name, cognitive dissonance, precedent, nominee, recipient, reflection.
References
1. Molchanova G.G. Kognitivnyi dissonans kak transaktsionnyi priem postroeniia urbanonima // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 19: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaia kommunikatsiia. 2018. No. 1. S. 8–14.
2. Stepanov Yu.S. V poiskakh pragmatiki (problema sub”ekta) // Izvestiia AN SSSR. Seriia literatury i iazyka. 1981. T. 40. No. 4. S. 325–332.
3. Pievskaya I.M. O tipologii diskursa v ramkakh sovremennoi paradigmy iazykoznaniia // Territoriia nauki. 2007. No. 1. S. 107–111.
4. Remchukova E.N., Sokolova T.P., Makhiianova L.R. Problemy neiminga: novye russkie urbanonimy v lingvokreativnom aspekte // Gumanitarnye, sotsial’no-ekonomicheskie i obshchestvennye nauki. 2015. No. 9. S. 328–330.
5. Gridina T.A. Iazykovaia igra: stereotip i tvorchestvo. Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo Ural’skogo gos. ped. un-ta, 1996. 225 s.
6. Koro N., Ponomarev A. Neimingovye metodiki: ekspress-testing i naming link test // Prakticheskii marketing. 2004. No. 3. S. 6–9.
7. Vereteno A.A., Belov K.A. Formirovanie brenda kak kliuchevoi element razvitiia malogo biznesa // Economics. 2016. No. 12 (21). S. 44–48.
8. Fedotova T.V. Neiming kak uslovie uspeshnosti stroitel’nogo biznesa // Nauchnyi vestnik Iuzhnogo instituta menedzhmenta. 2017. No. 1. S. 93–97.
9. Teliia V.N. Vtorichnaia nominatsiia i ee vidy // Iazykovaia nominatsiia: vidy naimenovanii / pod red. B.A. Serebrennikova, A.A. Ufimtsevoi. Moscow, 1977. S. 129–221.
10. Rut M.E. Obraznaia nominatsiia v russkoi onomastike. Moscow, 2008. S. 192.
11. Frolov N.K. Semantika i morfemika russkoi toponimii Tiumenskogo Priob’ia. Tiumen’, 1996. 160 s.
12. Smolnikov S.N. Aktual’naia i potentsial’naia russkaia antroponimiia // Voprosy onomastiki. 2005. No. 2. S. 23–35.
13. Krysin L.P. Russkoe slovo, svoe i chuzhoe: issledovaniia po sovremennomu russkomu iazyku i sotsiolingvistike. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2004. 884 s.
14. Kazkenova A.K. Motivirovannost’ zaimstvovannogo slova (na materiale sovremennogo russkogo iazyka) // Voprosy iazykoznaniia. 2003. No. 5. S. 72–80.