Speech Naming Research Articles

Russian anthroponyms at the initial stage of teaching Russian as a foreign language: linguodidactic aspect

This article is devoted to the topical problems of studying Russian anthroponyms at the initial stage of teaching Russian as a foreign language. The authors highlight and describe the main difficulties that foreigners face when using Russian first and last names in speech – the choice of the combination of components of the Russian personal name necessary in a specific communicative situation; the presence of a wide range of hypocoristic and qualitative personal names, the difficulty of correlating them with the full form of the name; the coincidence of some male and female hypocoristic personal names, making it difficult to distinguish them in a small context. A comparative analysis of elementary level textbooks on Russian as a foreign language from the point of view of the representation in them of Russian personal names prescribed by the lexical minimum of the corresponding level for mastering by students. It is established that the necessary lexical material in the analysed manuals is not fully presented, lack of systematic presentation of information about the formation and use of anthroponyms is mentioned. The authors of the article have formed and presented a system of language and speech tasks that make up for these shortcomings and contribute to the successful development of Russian personal names by foreign students at an elementary level of language proficiency.

Plato on the Norms of Speech and Thought

AbstractNear the beginning of the Cratylus (385e-387d) Plato’s Socrates argues, against his friend Hermogenes, that the standards of correctness for our use of names in speech are in no way up to us. Yet this conclusion should strike us, at least initially, as bizarre. After all, how could it not be up to us whether to call our children by the names of our parents, or whether to call dogs “dogs”? My aim in this paper will be to show that, although Plato’s argument does not succeed in establishing this apparently bizarre conclusion, it may well succeed in establishing an equally momentous conclusion: that the standards of correctness for our use of concepts in thought are in no way up to us.

Durational characteristics of proper names common words

Previous research has shown that infrequent words are longer in pure frequency lists than frequent words. Lists with proper/common homonyms (e.g., Grant/grant) were read as quickly as possible, with a surprising result: Although (printed) names are less frequent than words, name lists were faster than word lists. This could be due to the difficulty of focusing on one aspect of a homonym, commonness of name lists, greater frequency for names in speech, or special treatment for names. When only one word or name was read at a time, however, the names were longer in duration. This suggests that frequency works for names as it does for words, but that lists in which all items have similar or limited semantics are easier to produce. [Work supported by NIH Grant No. DC-00825.]