Personal Names in Asia: History, Culture and Identity

Chapter 4: Toward a Classification of Naming Systems in Insular Southeast Asia

Toward a Classification of Naming Systems in Insular Southeast Asia 77 77 CHAPTER 4 Toward a Classification of Naming Systems in Insular Southeast Asia Charles J-H Macdonald Introduction My general aim in this paper is twofold. I would like first to show how formal properties of naming systems are determined, or at least constrained , by cultural and social factors. Second, I would like to propose the beginning of a typology of naming systems for Southeast Asia. But, before doing so it is necessary to raise a number of theoretical points and define some key concepts.1 I am not pursuing a final definition of personal or proper names in the way linguistic philosophers do2 and I feel satisfied with a general definition of personal names based on the consideration that they fulfill two opposite functions: to identify a single individual person as different from other people and incorporate or qualify this person to make him similar to other persons. I am critical of the classificatory/taxonomic role of personal names, a point I will not discuss here, except for saying that the Lévi-Straussian emphasis on the classificatory, and even taxonomic, dimension of names is seriously ill-inspired.3 A more pragmatic view of personal names — which I see primarily as linguistic objects together with other proper names and with other linguistic items like deictics, articles, affixes, titles, pronouns, and kin terms — focuses on their behavior in speech acts rather than their semantic content or ultimate status as “rigid designators.” Formal properties of naming systems can be analyzed by using the following conceptual framework. 78 Charles J-H Macdonald 1. Probably the single most important concept is that of “name type” which has to be distinguished from the notion of “name tag” — technically a lexeme. In English, “given name,” “surname,” and “nickname ” are name types. John, Peter, Elizabeth, Mary, Smith, Mayer, Reid, Macdonald, Pete, Tony, Lizzy, Chuck, etc. are name tags. This obvious distinction usually gets lost in the course of analysis. I submit that an anthropological study of personal names is one that focuses on name types, rather than name tags. I would thus contrast onomastics as primarily a study of name tags, as against an anthropological or ethno-pragmatic study focusing on name types. 2. An important observation has to be made at this point. It seems that all existing naming practices (the way different cultures name individuals) contain not one but several name types — to my knowledge so far.4 3. Another crucial observation is that apparently all naming systems seem to put an emphasis on one of the name types, which I call the “autonym” (variously dubbed the “real,” “true,” “primary,” “big,” “beautiful,” “good,” “main,” and so on, name). The morphological sociological and pragmatic characteristics of the autonym are of paramount significance, as is its relationship to other name types.5 4. It is the relationship, organization, and combination of name types that make up the study of naming systems since this is how I see naming, not as a collection of name tags but as an organized set of name types with rules of combination and use. 5. As stated previously name types combine in various ways, and their use in speech acts and utterances characterize a naming system. Among the different ways this happens two seem more salient: whether name types are used together (causing name tags to be strung together) or when one is used instead of the other (causing different name tags to be used exclusively of others according to circumstance, identity of speakers, etc.). Most naming systems do both, but I submit that systems show a tendency to predominantly or characteristically use one rather than the other. This would result in extreme situations which we may see as ideal types, for instance: a. Systems that use few name tags for each individual, usually strung together in a certain order (Syntagmatic Systems); and b. Systems that use a great number of names tags for the same individual, but one at a time (Paradigmatic Systems). 6. The morphology of name types and particularly the autonym can be studied from grammatical, lexematic, and morpho-syntactic points of view in order to decide whether it is simple or complex, and if complex, how and to what degree. Toward a Classification of Naming Systems in Insular...