Aspekty „mikro” a „makro” jako interpretační a klasifikační problém v onomastice

Abstract

Onomastic studies performed in various research centres either avoid the “micro” or “macro” topics both from the theoretical and terminological aspects, or they have not yet come to any convincing solution. So far, all attempts to find the unequivocal definition have failed. Until today, no clear statement that would answer the core question about “what type of the proprial object and its naming process” should fall under “micro” or “macro” categories exists. Let’s assume that the “micro” and “micro” aspects do not have any relation to any quantitative or physical dimension. Regardless of its “micro” or “macro” aspects, the field name Za mlýnským potokem (Behind the mill’s brook) is a proprium because as a proper name it fulfils the following basic functions in the local communication that are distinctive for propria, and not for appellatives: individualisation, identification, differentiation and localisation. The use and the functions are determined by the specific communication framework (i.e. the actual communication activity), and are exclusively focused on the local proprial system. The particular communication circumstances are of the primary importance for the “micro” and “macro” aspect definition.