The Derivation, Choice and Use of a Personal Name

This study explores factors that influence the derivation, choice and use of personal names in Botswana and Scotland. These have been explored across different languages and cultures by previous studies (Nyström 1996, Coates 2006, Zuercher 2007, Ogunwale 2012 and Makondo 2013). The lexicon and the onomasticon exist mutually in the same space which means that some appellatives can function as names and vice versa. The speakers’ ability to use a lexical element as an appellative or a name appropriately is informed by their semantic and contextual understandings which enable them to link the lexical element to the appropriate object. This idea is raised by Russell (1940) cited by Coates (2007:360), who states that for a name to uniquely apply to an individual, its interpretation has to be context based. According to Nyström (1996:231), a name is primarily an identifier but if it is lexically transparent then its lexical qualities might also be used. However, it is not clear whether a lexically transparent name is primarily an identifier or a descriptor.

It has been argued that names in the UK do not have a readily available meaning (section 2.5.1.1) and Hanks et al (2006:xii) also state that this is the case with names in most languages of Western Europe. As a result, they might be arbitrarily chosen as compared to their African counterparts whose choices are determined by several factors. Setswana names and names in the UK have different derivational influences. The common derivational factor between Setswana names and those in the UK is that of religion, particularly Christianity (Gardner 1999, Hanks et al 2006). Both cultures have names that derive from the bible which might indicate that religion plays a significant role in the lives of the people in the two countries. Hanks et al (2006) state that religious names in the UK particularly derive from those of saints and from

50

Celtic tradition. They also derive from Classical tradition and from other languages. These names are assumed to be very prototypical of names in most European languages as they only exist in the onomasticon.

The derivation of African names is different because it is more context based. African names, as previous studies have established (section 2.1), derive from the circumstances of the pregnancy or birth, social circumstances of the family or community as well as the hopes of the parents for the child. For example, if the parents hope for the child to be a doctor they can name him Ngaka ‘doctor’, or if they were going through any kind of personal difficulties during the pregnancy or birth the child can be named Mathata ‘problems/difficulties.’ It is hypothesized that these names are, therefore, typical of Setswana names and not of Scottish names because they have an accessible lexical meaning. When such a name is used to identify an individual in everyday scenarios, users are not really interested in accessing the semantic meaning of the name, just as users of a lexically non-transparent name like John have no interest in its meaning when they use it in context. The meaning of the name John can be traced to its Latin and Hebrew forms in the New Testament which meant ‘God is gracious.’ Although the meanings of some European names can be traced back through time, they are not easily accessible. Furthermore, it is hypothesised that whether a name has an accessible meaning or not this is of less significance to the users, but probably more significant to the name givers.

Another debatable issue on names is the factors that influence their choice: whether they are chosen for their meaning, sound or orthographic appearance. The underlying issue of the choice of a name cannot be divorced from its derivation because the two are culturally intertwined. The society that one lives in influences the type of name that one is likely choose. Hanks et al (2006:xii), have observed that people in Western Europe rarely choose names for their meanings as these are usually opaque, so their choices are mainly on ornamental grounds such as the sound of the name or personal reasons such as honouring someone in their life. The names can also be influenced by fashion; using names that are popular in books or films of the time. However, in instances where names have lexical meanings such as names that derive from precious stones like Ruby or flowers like Daisy, the possibility is that the name may be chosen more for its meaning than for its sound or for both. As the majority of African names are lexically transparent it can be deduced that they are most likely chosen for their communicative properties. Africans use names to communicate over a wide variety of issues so the assumption is that the names will mostly have a message to pass on. We can therefore

51

assume that the choice of an African name is determined by what the name giver wants to express with it; appreciation to God for a child received, Kealeboga ‘I thank you (God)’, personal circumstances, Mathata ‘problems’ or aspirations and desires for the child, Morutegi ‘an educated person.’ Although it is generally assumed that African names are chosen for their communicative value, it does not mean that other motivations for name choices like namesakes are non-existent in the African contexts. As will become clear from later chapters, many names have more than one motivation.

The main function of a name is to identify, and to perform this function it does not need to carry any semantic content, but this is not always as straightforward as it seems. This is because more often than not, names carry lexical meanings which mean that they can also function as descriptive lexemes. Generally, speakers of a language would know when a name is used as an identifier and when it is used as a lexical item, so there is rarely any confusion between the two uses. As Ainiala (1996:47) has pointed out, a proper name never occurs in isolation, it always occurs in a certain context so it is the context that will inform the users whether or not an expression is a proper name. The assumption is that the context refers to both the syntactic and the semantic environment. A term such as pula ‘rain’ will function as a descriptive lexical item as in The rain (pula) is heavy today and as an identifier as in Pula is my brother. When used as an ordinary lexeme, the word will take a qualifying article like the, a or an but as an identifier it does not need to. Nyström (1996:234) states that the descriptive element of a lexically transparent name becomes less important when users become familiar with the name and the name bearer as the name becomes more of an identifier than a descriptor.

In view of prototype theory, we can conclude that types of names that are more prototypical are the ones that are clearly denotative as compared to those which are less prototypical. We can further argue that types of names which are largely prototypical are solely mono-referential and they carry no lexical meanings and those that are less prototypical are both referential and descriptive as they carry both qualities. The types of names that are less prototypical will always bring an immediate linguistic connection to the minds of the users but as users gradually become used to the name as an identifier, its semantic properties become less apparent and as such will rarely interfere with its referential properties. The word pula ‘rain’ might not be a typical name but it can function successfully as a name when all associations are linked to the person and not to the rain itself.

52

This chapter has given an overview of previous onomastic research in the two countries in an attempt to situate the current study and highlight the gaps that it intends to address. It has also discussed the different theoretical frameworks that the study engages.

53