Сравнительно-историческое, типологическое и сопоставительное языкознание | Филологический аспект №4 (36) Апрель, 2018

Особенности зоонимов в русском и английском языках

Орынбасаров Нурислам Сарсенбайулы
студент 4-го курса кафедры иностранных языков и межкультурной коммуникации, ЧУ «Академия «Болашак»
Оразгалиева Гульфарида Шамсуловна
к.ф.н., профессор кафедры иностранных языков и межкультурной коммуникации, ЧУ «Академия «Болашак»

Аннотация: Цель этой статьи – определить особые черты названий животных в русском и английском языках. Автор пришел к выводу, что анализ зоонимов это мало изученное направление, которое актуально сегодня, особенно в части наличия словаря, содержащего названия сказочных персонажей-животных и их соответствий в английском языке. Такие методы как поиск, сравнение, сбор и обработка данных, а также анализ информации использовались при написании данной работы. Данное исследование выполнено в рамках грантового финансирования КН МОН РК на тему «Создание трехъязычного словаря биологических терминов с лингвокультурологическим компонентом».
Ключевые слова: зооним, животное, сказочный персонаж, перенос, ономастика, антропоним

Orynbassarov Nurislam Sarsenbaiuly
student of the 4th grade, group IN-14-1, Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication Department, Private Institution Bolashak Academy, Kazakhstan, Karaganda, nuris.eastside@mail.ru
Orazgaliyeva Gulfarida Shamsulovna
Candidate of Philological Sciences, professor of Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication Department, Private Institution Bolashak Academy, Kazakhstan, Karaganda, orazgaliyeva_gulfarida@mail.ru

Abstract: This article aims at identifying the specific features of naming animals in different names in Russian and English. The author found out that the analysis of zoonyms in Russian and English is a little-studied topic that is relevant today, especially in the part of the dictionary, which includes the nicknames of fairy-tale animals and their English equivalents. The following methods were used in work: search, comparison, collection and analysis of information. This study was conducted within the framework of the grant funding project “Creation of trilingual dictionary of biological terms with the linguacultural component.”
Keywords: zoonym, animal, fairy-tale character, transmission, onomastics, anthroponym

Introduction

In the modern world, the role of animals in human life is particularly significant. In the city, cats, dogs, hamsters, guinea pigs, parrots not only delight the eyes of their masters and amuse them but also, most importantly, become loyal friends, the sources of joy and happiness, consolation, with whom people do not feel alone. For rural residents, domestic animals, especially cows, pigs, horses, are indispensable in economic activities. Rescue animals, in turn, occupied a special place during the war and continued to do that in peacetime. It is also difficult to imagine our life without a circus, a zoo, and various exhibitions. In most cases, all people’s “smaller brothers” have their names. In different languages, there is a vast variety of animal nicknames, which is due to various circumstances in the historical, cultural, social life of society. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that figurative thinking of different peoples is characterized by national diversity, being reflected in the naming of animals.

Communication and interaction of language and culture are one of the fundamental problems of modern linguistics since in most cases, a person does not deal with the world itself but with his ideas, cognitive patterns, and models. Any human, being an integral part of the culture, perceives the world or different worlds through the prism of his/her culture and language. Makovsky, Jackendoff, and Lakoff write about the embodiment of communication, cognitive processes, and mechanisms [1]; [2]; [3].

Since the primary function of culture is the accumulation and processing of information obtained in the course of human activity, training is directly related to the peculiarities of the national mentality. The mentality is a worldview in categories and forms of the native language, connecting intellectual, spiritual, and permissive qualities of a national character in its typical manifestations [4, p.74]. According to Kolesov, the word embodies the ethnicity and national ideas, represented by the traditional symbols of this culture in their finished form [4. p.74]. Such disciplines as anthropological linguistics, ethnolinguistics, and ethnopsycholinguistics study the interaction of language and culture. N.I. Tolstoy defined "ethnolinguistics" as an interdisciplinary science that deals with the language and culture in integrity. It is not just a reflection of folklore culture, psychology, and mythological concepts. Ethnolinguistics plays the constructive role in communication and influences on the formation and functioning of folk culture and folk psychology. Russian scientists such as Nikitina [5], Tolstoy [6], Telia [7], Bartminsky [8], and Tolstaya [9] studied various aspects of ethnolinguistics. The ethnolinguistic school in Kazakhstan is associated with the name of academician Kaidarov. Additionally, a large group of Kazakh scientists, such as Gabithanuly, Karsybekova, Zhusupova, Atakhanov, Atabaev, Katybaev, Mankeev, Majitaev, and Tazhikeev, who took into account the Kazakh history and reflected life in the modern objective reality within the language [10].

The Сoncept of Zoonym

Zoonyms are assigned to animals’ proper names or nicknames. Onomastics is a section of linguistics that studies any proper names, the history of their origin, and transformation as a result of prolonged use in the source language or in connection with borrowing from other words. Zoonomia is the youngest area of onomastics that deals with the nicknames of animals. It is a poorly researched scientific layer because of the rare fixation of zoonyms in official documents and frequent disappearance due to the death of their bearer. First of all, domestic animals such as cats, dogs, horses, pigs, cows, etc. have proper names. However, other animals, kept in zoos and circuses, for instance, can also have their names, including even creatures like the famous Nessie is a hypothetical inhabitant of the Scottish lake Loch Ness, which existence has not been proven yet.

Zoonyms can be divided into single and multiple. For example, the well-known Nessi belongs to the individual zoonyms. Numerous zoonyms turned into the official nicknames due to their high frequency of use. In Russian language, such typical dog nicknames as Rex, Jack, Mukhtar, Druzhok, and Sharik, cat nicknames such as Vas’ka, Ryzhik, Dymok, or Murka, nicknames of cows such as Buryonka, Pestrushka, and Zhdanka, the nicknames of horses such as Bujan and Gnedukh have appeared. In the semantics of these zoonyms, a particular attribute is fixed to a specific type of animal, for example, Mishka, Krokh, Mus’ka, or Shalun. In English, there is also a set of the most typical multiple zoonyms. According to some studies published on the Internet, in the United States in recent years, the most famous nicknames for pets (primarily cats and dogs) were Max, Maggie, Buddy, Bailey, Jake, Sam, Molly, Nicky, Coco, Sadie [11].

Sources of Zoonym Formation

Among the causes of zoonym formation there are:

a) multiple anthroponyms: English speech widely uses both derivatives such as abbreviated forms: Mag, Sam, Ben and diminutive forms with the suffix -y or – ie, Molly, Nicky, Maggie. In the Russian language, there are forms with a suffix – ‘ka’: Vas’ka, Mishka, Son’ka, Muska, and Fil’ka. Sometimes, jokingly respectful names copy more official forms of treatment, such as Vasily Timofejevich – the nickname of the cat, Aksinya Ivanovna – the nickname of a pig, Ivan Ivanovich – the nickname of the goose. Also, in Russia, fashionable foreign anthroponyms, such as Jerry, Jack, Barbie, Tom, and Ralph, became popular. Conversely, a similar trend in English zoonomia fails. Only a few nicknames of some animals, kept in zoos, look like the borrowings from other languages, for example, African: Matata (warthog name), Ashiki, Sabiki (the nicknames of lionesses), Kvahari (the nickname of the antelope), Mwan (the nickname of a chimpanzee). Such popularity can be explained by the fame of a Disney cartoon The Lion King in 1995, where the animal characters were named after African names;

b) individual anthroponyms such as names and surnames of famous personalities of the present and the past, as well as aspects of myths, literary works, movies, and TV shows. Nixon (the former US President), Nefertiti (the queen of ancient Egypt), Genghis Khan (Mongol Khan-conqueror), Capone (gangster), Athena, Venus (ancient goddesses), Romeo, Capulet (literary names), Gomez and Morticia (the characters of the TV series Semeyka Adams) served as the basis for the animals’ names;

c) toponyms and astronomers, e.g., Egypt, Nile, Alaska or Russian Baikal, Amazon, Africa, or the Bega;

d) trademarks and names of products (especially in English): Hershey, Cadbury (chocolate brand), Havana (name of cigars), Cappuccino (recipe for coffee), and Bugle Boy (branded clothing);

e) nominal names, other words and expressions, emphasizing some external characteristic of animals, their character, or another association with it, for example, in Rusian – Pestruha, Ryzhik, Belianka, Faithful, Bujan, Likhaya, Noshka, Krasotka, Matroskin, Kashtanka, whereas in English – Spotsie, Blackberry, Jasmine, Danger, Ferocious, Sweetie Pie, and Honey.

e) computer slang: ICQ, Flash, Chip.

When a zoonym acquires the status of a universal nickname of a particular animal species, it quickly learns a secondary classifying nomination, which turns into a category of familiar names, such as Bobik, Sharik, Barbos, and Juchka prevalent in the past although today they are recognized as dog names. Hence, for example, the decision of the translator of the Russian fairy tale Repka, which zoonym Zuchka transferred to English just as Dog, is justified.

Features of Zoonyms’ Transmission in Translated Texts

In the scientific literature, zoonyms are poorly researched, and it is almost impossible to solve the problem of their transmission in translated texts. Issues for translation are primarily those nicknames, which people have a specific motivation. If a formal name forms a nickname or a describing word or an expression, it usually remains relevant and essential for translation. An attempt to convey this meaning often comes into conflict with the individualizing function (IF), which requires the preservation of its unique external form.

For zoonyms, the external form is even more important than for any other kind of IF [12]. After all, they primarily name the animal, which must respond to a particular combination of sounds in Russian nickname for some reasons. The accompanying connotations and associations, presented in the semantic structure of the zoonym, occupy a subordinate position about this function. For example, changing the name of Spotsie to Pestrushka or Pyatnistaya will not respond to the new variants of its name.

The approach of an interpreter to the transfer of zoonyms depends, first of all, on the nature and situation of the translation. Oral and written interpretation of information and other non-fiction texts, as a rule, use onomastic correspondences, which convey the external form of the name close to the original. Such communications make it clear to the reader that the animal is the bearer of the zoonym, responding correctly to this complex of sounds. If a translator thinks it is necessary to explain the motivation for the nickname to the listener or the reader, s/he can resort to clarifying the translation, describing the connotations, for example, in parentheses. So, during the years of his tenure as the U.S. President Bill Clinton, journalists actively covered his family life, in sleep (or socks). When writing about Clinton's cat, some Russian newspapers transmitted the cat’s nickname as the assonance to Russian "socks" – Sox.

The situation becomes different when literary texts are translated. In this case, the identification function (IF) of the zoonym is irrelevant, or none at all in the fact of fairy animals. Therefore, if the motivation and other semantic connotations of the original zoonym are transparent and amenable to transmission and transforming translation, a correspondence with another external form is possible. By this principle, for example, the name of the wolf White Fang in the novel White Fang by Jack London, or the dog nicknames in the story of Dowdy Smith One Dalmatian (Missis – Lady, Lucky – Lucky, Patch – Black) are transmitted [13]. At the same time, if the connotations of zoonym are absent or are too vague, it should choose an onomastic correspondence. Here are examples of such communications (also from the story of D. Smith): Bingo – Bingo, Roly Poly – Rolly Polly.

The names of fabulous and allegorical animals are a sophisticated material for translation. They are even difficult to attribute to zoonym because their carriers are personified or humanized: they talk and often live like people in houses, wear clothes, do some household chores, and even earn money. Therefore, the names of such characters from a scientific viewpoint are analogous to anthroponymic nicknames. Many authors build animals’ nicknames on the play of words, consonances, associations, or subtexts.

Formal designations of animals often acquire the status of their names in the tales. In this case, they are written with a capital letter and used without the article (for example, Cat, Dog, Goat, Frog) although corresponding to a particular item occur no less frequently. Sometimes, the use of the name without the article, as it were, finally fixes the transition of the nominal designation in the IF. For example, in the fabulous story of Paul Gallico (Manxmouse), an unusual tailless mouse named the Manx Mouse, in analogy to the Manx cat (tailless cat of the Isle of Man), is called only in the first chapter of the story. At the beginning of the second chapter, its name does not only lose the article but also emerges from two components into one: Manxmouse [13]. However, in other books, this nuance is missing. Thus, in the fairy novel Wind in the Willows by Graham, some animal characters are named using the article (the Mole, the Badger, the Rat), and others – without it (Toad), and it is impossible to discern any semantic underpinnings under this difference [14].

Such nominal-own names as Cat, Fox, or Toad relate to the generic component of one or another gender and, therefore, actual. In the Russian language, such actualization always takes place by the meaning of the grammatical gender; when using the word as the name of a fairy-tale character, this value becomes equivalent to indicating its biological sex.

English and Russian names of personified animals associations with different sexes greatly complicate the task of an interpreter. So, the opening part of Oscar Wilde's Happy Prince (Oscar Wilde, The Happy Prince) story tells people how the Swallow and the Reed fell in love [14]. Thus, in this pair of lovers, the Swallow (Swallow) appears as a man and the Reed (Reed) – as a woman. But in Russian, the words ‘swallow’ and ‘reed’ are both feminines, and the originality is partly lost in the following translation: “One night, swallows flew by the city. Almost all swallows flew to Egypt for the seventh week, but one Swallow decided to stay in the town because of her love with a beautiful, flexible Reed.” In 1912, Chukovsky, realizing the unsuccessfulness of this version of the reading, published the translation and subsequently corrected the Reed for Reeds. Thus, the "man" and the "woman" in this couple changed places, not corresponding to the original characters in any way: the Swallow has an active, direct masculine role in the tale, and the Reed – a girlish silence and modesty. Also, the Russian word “reed” is collective and cannot refer to one reed. Hence, in the Russian language, the name of the bird of the swallow has the grammatical meaning of the feminine gender.

Later, the translators of K. Graham's novel The Wind in the Willows faced the same problem [15]. The main characters of this book, Toad and Rat were both males. Direct Russian dictionary did not match ‘a toad’ and ‘a rat’ because of the feminine grammatical gender; therefore, Frog replaced Toad, but Rat – Mouse. The replacement of one species of animal by another is justified here by dealing not with notes of a naturalist but with a conditional allegory of human characters and habits; therefore, used in this allegory, the concrete image of the animal admits a particular modification. The names of fantastic beasts and creatures, abound especially in children's literature, provide a broad scope for the imagination of an artistic translator. Quite often, writers create them not by ordinary common words but by consonances, making people guess possible associations.

The onomastic transfer of such IF usually does not reach the goal. So, if we transfer the name of the fantastic creature Snark from the poem of Carroll's Hunting of the Snark as Snark, it will lose any associative basis [16]. But the English name is associated with both the verb ‘snarl’ and the noun ‘shark.’ Trying to use a similar principle for constructing Russian correspondence, different translators made a start from various associations. Hence, the different variants of the transmission of this IF are different: Zmer (association with the words of the beast and snakes), Rykula (association with the phrase ‘roar and shark’), Snark (according to Klyuev, on the one hand, it is similar to the English culture. On the other side, it matters in the translation of the title Hunting of the Snark, which creates an association with the adverb, the more than in the poem the hunt ends unsuccessfully) [17].

In the Russian folklore, the names of personified animals are often accompanied by stable epithets: Mouse-Norushka, Lisichka-Sister, Zaychik-Pobegaychik, Gray Wolf-Teeth Shchelk, etc. Some creatures in the folklore were awarded the names similar to anthroponyms: Toptygin, Mikhailo Potapych, and Lisa Patrikejevna. Such naming is sometimes found in translated not only fiction but also other genres, for example, journal and newspaper articles [18].

It is desirable to search for an equivalent match in English folklore. Indeed, there are some analogs, for example, Koza-Dereza – Nanny Goat, Gray Wolf-Zubov Shchelka – Gray Wolf or Big Bad Wolf. However, their names are insufficient. Some English fairy-tale zoonyms do not have epithets; so, usually, foxes, mice, and bears in English folklore are merely called the Fox, the Mouse, and the Bear. Some animals more often appear in fairy tales in one language than on another. For example, in English folklore, hares are hardly mentioned, but rabbits (Bunny Rabbit) are abundant. In Russian folklore, alternatively, there are no rabbits, but the Hare Kosoy is very popular [18].

The main practical problem is the complete absence of any directories and dictionaries, where such folklore characters would be somehow described and systematized, especially in comparison with the figures of foreign language folklore. Therefore, the translation requires the original analog when using English equivalents with particles, such as Kurocjka Ryaba – the Speckled Hen, Konyok-Gorbunok – the Little Humpbacked Horse or plural nouns, e.g., Kosoy, Zaychik-Poprygaychik – Squint-Eyes, Hare the Long Legs, Hare the Long Ears [18]; [19]. People should be extremely cautious when using such naming in a non-native language; in case of the slightest doubt, it is better to abandon the transmission of the epithet.

Conclusion

Zoonyms form an essential layer of both Russian and English vocabularies. The naming of animals comes from ancient times to the present day due to their exceptional role in human life: they are indispensable helpers in the economic growth of a person, circus workers, zoo inhabitants, and loyal friends.

Language is a living organism that reflects in the literature any phenomenon, occurring in the life. The spread of computerization and the emergence of new terms led to the development of such animal names as Chip, Flash, and others. Some of the nicknames became so popular that they call a particular class of an animal, for example, Druzhok for dogs, Vas’ka for cats. In English literature, usually, the name of animals is their name, e.g., Cat, Dog, written without an article and with a capital letter. The authority of any politician, celebrities, or artists can also affect the distribution of pet names. For example, both in Russia and the West, the dog’s nickname Connie became favorite because that was the name of the beloved Labrador of Putin, the President of the Russian Federation.

Zoonyms often reflect the physical qualities of animals, their appearance, character traits, intelligence, skills, which are especially important in the literature, when the personified animal gets a name due to some peculiar features, evoking a more magnificent reader’s interest and helping to understand the idea of the author. The world of zoonyms is diverse and exciting for research. Unfortunately, not all names of animals remain in the language and human speech. It is often associated, firstly, with the lack of any official documentation, and as a consequence, with the loss of an animal’s life. Secondly, rapid changes in various spheres of society, primarily in vocabulary, lead to some transformations as a result of which some zoonyms in the form of human names become famous, whereas others lose their significance. In this regard, it seems critical to continue studying zoonyms as a separate category of onomastics, from historical, cultural, and social perspectives, paying particular attention to the issues of translation.

1. Makovskiy, M.M. (1996). A Comparative Dictionary of Mythological Symbolic in Indo-European Countries. Image of the World and Myths of Images (p.415). Moscow: VLADO.
2. Jackendoff, R.S. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge. Mass: MIT Press.
3. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Kolesov, V.V. (1992). The Concept of Culture: Image-Concept-Symbol. // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University, 3(16), 78-83.
5. Nikitina, S.Y. (1993). Oral Folk Culture and Language Awareness. Moscow: Nauka.
6. Tolstoy, N.I. (1997). Ethnolinguistics Among Humanities (p.315). Russian Philology: An Anthology.
7. Teliya, V.N. (1999). Phraseology in the Context of Culture (p.336). Moscow: Languages of Russian literature.
8. Bartminskiy, Y. (2005). Linguistic Image of the World: Essays on Ethnolinguistics (p.512). Moscow: Idrik.
9. Tolstaya, S.M. (2010). Semantic Categories of Language and Culture. Essays on the Slavic Culture (p.368). Moscow: Librokom
10. Kaidarov, A.T. (2008). Fundamentals of Ethnolinguistics (p.302). Almaty.
11. 200 Most Popular Dog Names (100 Boy & 100 Girl). (n.d.). Retrieved 2018, from https://petset.com/pet-names/popular-dog-names/.
12. Karasik, V.I. Language Keys. Volgograd: Paradigm, 2007. 520p.
13. London, Jack. White Fang, by Jack London. 1929.
14. Gallico, Paul. Manxmouse. HarperCollins Children's Books, 2012.
15. Grahame, Kenneth. The Wind in the Willows. Treasury Collection, 1989.
16. Wilde, Oscar. Happy Prince. NB M Publishing, 2016.
17. Carroll, Lewis. Hunting of the Snark. s.n., 1939.
18. Dictionary of Phraseology. http://frazbook.ru/tag/yazyk/ (date of access 04/10/2016).
19. Ozhegov, S.I. Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language. M.: Peace and Education, Onyx, 2011. 736p.