ИМЕНА СОБСТВЕННЫЕ В ЯЗЫКЕ, ПЕРЕВОДЕ И ПЕРЕВОДЕ КУЛЬТУРЫ

Abstract

The paper focuses on onomasticon’s problematic status in language and linguistics. In particular, we posit the following research questions: (1) What is place of onomasticon within a language’s lexicon? (2) Is the current lexicographic practice adequate to the language reality and the users’ needs? (3) Does the modern applied linguistics serve as an adequate theoretical framework for the current practice of intercultural communication, translation and foreign-culture-oriented discourse? The review of approaches towards the nature of the proper names and their place in a language’s lexicon prevalent in the fundamental linguistics allows us to conclude that regardless of the research aspect (semantic, grammatical, or functional), fundamental linguistics treats proper names as a specific category of words, opposed to the rest of the vocabulary basing on a series of parameters. A review of approaches to proper names within branches of applied linguistics, aimed at optimizing the communicative function of language, indicates that they inherit the biased attitude towards proper names, that has been established within fundamental linguistics. This bias results in the theory being inadequate to practical language use. Proper names are characterized by richness and dynamic semantics, formal variability, and functional complexity. Onomasticon in general is highly heterogeneous, with each class of proper names having its functional peculiarities. If we hold it that applied linguistics is meant to solve the problems of language users, facilitate and optimize the language functioning, then excluding a large and highly problematic lexical category from its object, applied linguistics defeats its purpose.