Vol. 68 No. 3 (2020)
Article

The Symbolic Power of Place Names: The Case of the River Olše/Olza/?olza in Northeastern Czechia

PDF
  • Přemysl Mácha
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00277738.2020.1786925

Published 2020-07-02

Keywords

  • alliteration,
  • anthroponym,
  • baby names,
  • Anglo,
  • England

Copyright (c) 2020 American Name Society

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

It is not uncommon for place names to become symbols of national identity. Once in that position, such names often play a significant symbolic role in national and local politics. It is less common, however, for actual place name usage to significantly contradict declared place name preferences such that for official purposes people prefer a name variant that they do not use themselves. This article describes an instance of just such cognitive dissonance in a trilingual region in the Czech-Polish borderlands. As will be shown, arguments over which variant to use in this region have been marked by ongoing debates about multilingualism in the linguistic landscape. The parallel usage of the names Olše/Olza/?olza for the local river shows how important place names can be in articulating national belonging in spite of actual place name usage. The analysis is based on the results of a survey conducted on a large population sample. The questionnaire results are supplemented by interviews and secondary literature.

PDF

References

  1. Alderman, Derek H. 2000. “Naming Places and Commemoration in the American South.” The Professional Geographer 52, no. 4: 672–684.
  2. Azaryahu, Maoz. 1996. “The Power of Commemorative Street Names.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14, no. 3: 311–330.
  3. Basso, Keith H. 1988. “Speaking with Names: Language and Landscape among the Western Apache.” Cultural Anthropology 3, no. 2: 99–130.
  4. Basso, Keith H. 1996. Wisdom Sits in Places. Landscape and Language among the Western Apache. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
  5. Berg, Lawrence D., and Jani Vuolteenaho, eds. 2009. Critical Toponymies: The Contested Politics of Place Naming. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
  6. Bucher, Stanislav, René Matlovič, Alena Lukáčová, Barbora Harizal, Kvetoslava Matlovičová, Jana Kolesárová, Lenka Čermáková, Miloslav Michalko. 2013. “The Perception of Identity through Urban Toponyms in the Regional Cities of Slovakia.” Anthropological Notebooks 19, no. 3: 23–40.
  7. Cenoz, Jasone, and Durk Gorter. 2006. “Linguistic Landscape and Minority Languages.” International Journal of Multilingualism 3, no. 1: 67–80.
  8. Cohen, Saul B., and Nurit Kliot. 1992. “Place-Names in Israel’s Ideological Struggle over the Administered Territories.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82, no. 4: 653–680.
  9. Gawrecki, Dan. 1993. “Olza a Olše.” Těšínsko 36, no. 2: 13–15.
  10. Gill, Graeme. 2005. “Changing Symbols: The Renovation of Moscow Place Names.” Russian Review 64, no. 3: 480–503.
  11. González-Faraco, Juan Carlos, and Michael D. Murphy. 1997. “Street Names and Political Regimes in an Andalusian Town.” Ethnology 36, no. 2: 123–148.
  12. Jordan, Peter, 2009. “Place Names as Ingredients of Space-Related Identity.” In Geographical Names as a Part of the Cultural Heritage, edited by Peter Jordan, Hubert Bergmann, Catherine Cheetham, and Isolde Hausner, 33–39. Wien: Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung der Universität Wien.
  13. Kearns, Robin A., and Lawrence D. Berg. 2002. “Proclaiming Place: Towards a Geography of Place Name Pronunciation.” Social & Cultural Geography 3, no. 3: 283–302.
  14. Light, Duncan. 2004. “Street Names in Bucharest, 1990–1997: Exploring the Modern Historical Geographies of Post-Socialist Change.” Journal of Historical Geography ¨ 30, no. 1: 154–172.
  15. Lutterer, Ivan, and Rudolf Šrámek. 2004. Zeměpisná Jména v Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezsku. Havlíčkův Brod: Tobiáš.
  16. Mácha, Přemysl, Horst Lassak, and Luděk Krtička. 2018. “City Divided: Place Names and Nationalism in the Czech-Polish Borderlands.” Mitteilungen Der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 1: 303–329. doi: 10.1553/moegg160s303
  17. Palonen, Emilia. 2008. “The City-Text in Post-Communist Budapest: Street Names, Memorials, and the Politics of Commemoration.” GeoJournal 73, no. 3: 219–230.
  18. Puzey, Guy, 2009. “Opportunity or Threat? the Role of Minority Toponyms in the Linguistic Landscape.” Names in Multi-Lingual, Multi-Cultural and Multi-Ethnic Contact. Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Onomastic Sciences August 17-22, 2008, York University, Toronto, Canada, edited by Wolfgang Ahrens, Sheila Embleton, and André Lapierre, 821–827. Toronto: York University.
  19. Rose-Redwood, Reuben S. 2008. “Sixth Avenue is Now a Memory: Regimes of Spatial Inscription and the Performative Limits of the Official City-Text.” Political Geography 27, no. 8: 875–894.
  20. Rose-Redwood, Reuben S., Derek Alderman, and Maoz Azaryahu. 2010. “Geographies of Toponymic Inscription: New Directions in Critical Place-Name Studies.” Progress in Human Geography 34, no. 4: 453–470.
  21. Šakaja, Laura, 2011. “Other(Ing), Self(Portraying), Negotiating: The Spatial Codification of Values in Zagreb’s City-Text.” Cultural Geographies 18, no. 4: 495–516. and, and Jelena Stanić.
  22. Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1991. “Language and the Making of Place: A Narrative-Descriptive Approach.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81, no. 4: 684–696.
  23. Yeoh, Brenda S.A. 1996. “Street-Naming and Nation-Building: Toponymic Inscriptions of Nationhood in Singapore.” Area 28, no. 3: 298–307.