Advertisement

Role of Place Names in Relating People and Space

  • Peter JordanEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

On the background of new cultural geography and after a glance at the naming process, the chapter highlights five essential roles played by places names in relating human to territory: (1) When they are descriptive, they emphasize spatial characteristics that are important for a community – they reflect in this way the interests of a given community and are condensed narratives on the cultural disposition of human communities in history and today. (2) In the status of endonyms (i.e., names used by the local community), place names mark the territory of a community, reflect the general human distinction between “ours” and “theirs,” and have a strong symbolic meaning. (3) In the status of exonyms (i.e., names used by a local community for geographical features outside their own territory), they indicate the network of relations of a community extending beyond the boundaries of its own territory. (4) They structure space. Often concepts of space are just defined by their names. Place names are not only carriers of spatial concepts and enable communication about spatial structures, but they also contribute to the mental structuring of space. By place names, spatial structures cannot only be described but also be shaped and modified. (5) They support emotional ties between humans and space and promote in this way the formation of space-related identity. Geographical names contribute in this way to space-related identity building, both of individuals and communities.

The chapter will not only describe and explain these roles, but also illustrate them by many examples.

Keywords

Place names Descriptive naming Endonyms Exonyms Space-related emotion Community Space 

Notes

Publisher’s note:

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Back, O. (2002). Übersetzbare Eigennamen. Eine synchronische Untersuchung von interlingualer Allonymie und Exonymie. Klagenfurt: Praesens.Google Scholar
  2. Basso, K. H. (1988). Speaking with names: Language and landscape among the Western Apache. Cultural Anthropology, III(2), 99–130.Google Scholar
  3. Basso, K. H. (1996). Wisdom sits in places. Landscape and language among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, L. D., & Volteenaho, J. (Eds.). (2009). Critical toponymies: The contested politics of place naming. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Conedera, M., Vassere, S., Neff, C., Meurer, M., & Krebs, P. (2007). Using toponymy to reconstruct past land use: A case study of “Brusada” (Burn) in Southern Switzerland. Journal of Historical Geography, XXXIII, 729–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eller, N., Hackl, S., & Ľupták, M. (Eds.). (2008). Namen und ihr Konfliktpotential im europäischen Kontext. Regensburg: Edition Vulpes.Google Scholar
  7. Helleland, B. (2009). Place names as means of landscape identity. In P. Jordan, H. Bergmann, C. Cheetham, & I. Hausner (Eds.), Geographical names as a part of the cultural heritage (pp. 25–31). Wien: Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung der Universität Wien, Kartographie und Geoinformation.Google Scholar
  8. Horn, J. (2004). Ortsnamenkonflikte. Lösungswege für mehrsprachige Gebiete. St. Augustin: Asgard.Google Scholar
  9. Jordan, P. (2000). The importance of using exonyms – Pleading for a moderate and politically sensitive use. In J. Sievers (Ed.), Second international symposium on geographical names “GeoNames 2000,” 28–30 Mar 2000 (pp. 87–92). Frankfurt am Main: Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie.Google Scholar
  10. Jordan, P. (2005). The Romanian Place Names Act 2001 and its implementation compared to multilingual situations in other countries. In Proceedings of the international conference on minority names/indigenous names and multilingual areas, Geonames 2005, Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, Frisia, 14–16 Apr 2005 (pp. 59–68). Ljouwert/Leeuwarden.Google Scholar
  11. Jordan, P. (2006). Das rumänische Ortsnamengesetz und seine Umsetzung im Vergleich mit Situationen in Österreich. Review of Historical Geography and Toponomastics, 1(1), 7–20.Google Scholar
  12. Jordan, P. (2009a). Place names as ingredients of space-related identity. In P. Jordan, H. Bergmann, C. Cheetham, & I. Hausner (Eds.), Geographical names as a part of the cultural heritage (pp. 33–39). Wien: Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung der Universität Wien, Kartographie und Geoinformation.Google Scholar
  13. Jordan, P. (2009b). Exonyms as indicators of trans-national spatial relations. Review of Historical Geography and Toponomastics, IV(7–8), 7–16.Google Scholar
  14. Jordan, P. (2012). Geographische Namen als Ausdruck menschlicher Raumbindung. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 154, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jordan, P. (2014). The meaning of bilingual naming in public space for the cultural identity of linguistic minorities. Review of Historical Geography and Toponomastics, IX(17–18), 21–24.Google Scholar
  16. Jordan, P. (2015a). The endonym/exonym divide: On the state of our discussion, and a final attempt towards new definitions. In P. Jordan, & P. Woodman (Eds.), Confirmation of the Definitions. Proceedings of the 16th UNGEGN working group on exonyms meeting, Hermagor, 5–7 Jun 2014 (pp. 9–17). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
  17. Jordan, P. (2015b). The endonym/exonym divide from a cultural–geographical point of view. In J. Löfström & B. Schnabel-Le Corre (Eds.), Challenges in synchronic toponymy (pp. 163–179). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Jordan, P., & Woodman, P. (Eds.). (2016). Place-name changes. In Proceedings of the Symposion in Rome, 17–18 Nov 2014. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
  19. Kathrein, Y. (2009). Onomastic research within a project on historical mining sites. The research program “HiMAT” in Austrian Tyrol. Working paper 4. Presented by the head of the Austrian UNGEGN delegation, Peter Jordan, at the Session of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN), Nairobi, 5–12 May 2009.Google Scholar
  20. Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1963). Culture, a critical review of concepts and definitions. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  21. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1946). Natur und Kultur. In W. E. Mühlmann (Ed.), Kulturanthropologie (pp. 80–107). Köln/Berlin: Kiepenheuer and Witsch.Google Scholar
  22. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1949). Les structures élémentaires de la parenté. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
  23. Mitchell, D. (2000). Cultural geography. A critical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Rose-Redwood, R., Alderman, D., & Azaryahu, M. (2010). Geographies of toponymic inscription: New directions in critical place-name studies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(4), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sperling, W. (2008). Bäume und Wald in den geographischen Namen Mitteleuropas: Die böhmischen Länder. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  26. StAGN (Ständiger Ausschuss für geographischer Namen). (Ed.). (2015). Empfehlung zur Großgliederung Europas. http://www.stagn.de/drupal/Publikationen%20und%20Downloads. Accessed 30 Dec 2015.
  27. Tátrai, P., & Erőss, Á. (2016). Toponymic silence in contested geographical spaces: The neglect of place-name changes in Cyprus and Central Eastern Europe. In: Jordan, P., & Woodman, P. (Eds.), Place-Name Changes. Proceedings of the Symposium in Rome, 17–18 November 2014 (= Name & Place, 5) (pp. 447–463). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, S. (Ed.). (1998). The uses of place names. Edinburgh: Scottish Cultural Press.Google Scholar
  29. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Tuan, Y.-F. (1990 [1974]). Topophilia. A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tuan, Y.-F. (1991). Language and the making of place: A narrative–descriptive approach. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, LXXXI, 684–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names). (Ed.). (2002). Glossary of terms for the standardization of geographical names. New York: United Nations, ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/85. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/pdf/Glossary_of_terms_revised.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2015.
  33. UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names). (2015). http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/confGeneral.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2015.
  34. Watt, B. (2009). Cultural aspects of place names with special regard to names in indigenous, minority and regional languages. In P. Jordan, H. Bergmann, C. Cheetham, & I. Hausner (Eds.), Geographical names as a part of the cultural heritage (pp. 21–24). Wien: Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung der Universität Wien, Kartographie und Geoinformation.Google Scholar
  35. Weichhart, P., Weiske, C., & Werlen, B. (2006). place identity und images: Das Beispiel Eisenhüttenstadt. Wien: Universität Wien, Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung.Google Scholar
  36. Woodman, P. (Ed.). (2012). The great toponymic divide. Reflections on the definition and usage of endonyms and exonyms. Warszawa: Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography.Google Scholar
  37. Zeune, A. (1815). Erdansichten oder Abriss einer Geschichte der Erdkunde. München: Maurer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Urban and Regional Research, Austrian Academy of SciencesViennaAustria
  2. 2.University of the Free StateBloemfonteinSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations