Restauronyms of Moscow in the structural-grammatical aspect

The aim of this article is to describe the structure of names of restaurant business enterprises in Moscow, to reveal the peculiarities of their lexical-grammatical design, the ways of their name-formation. The material for the research was more than 5 300 restau-ronyms (restaurant names) of Moscow, from which foreign names (about 1 500 titles) were excluded since it is impossible to maintain the unity of classification parameters in the multilingual conditions. The experience of domestic onomasiologist in the description of ergonyms in the structural-grammatical aspect was used in the study. The conclusions of the study are as following. 1. The restauronyms of Moscow are represented by three structures: single words (64 %), word combinations (34 %), sentences (2 %). The first type is shown by the nouns (Myata, Valentina), the adjectives (Yuzhnoe, Svetlyy) and other parts of speech (13, Tvoyo, Zhili-byli, Po-domashnemu, Allo). The second group is word combinations of different structures. Substantive structures with relations of agreement (Khoroshee delo, Tsarskiy pir), government (Parad kotlet, Istoki vkusa) and coordinative combinations (Sol’ i perets, Kry-lyshko ili nozhka, Plyushka & Vatrushka) dominate. 2.2 % of the total number of Russian units are prepositional combinations (U svoikh, Na bul’vare, V rayu). The third group is sentences (Zhizn’ prekrasna, Leto blizko, Dorogaya, ya perezvonyu), often expressing hortative modality (Fedya, dich’!, Davayte potantsuem), displaying their dialogue nature (Bud’ kak doma, Khleb da sol’, Mersi boku, Nikhao). 2. Three methods of restauronym formation are indicated in the article: onymization, transonymization and derivation. Onymization can be simple (Eyforiya, Teplaya kompaniya) or complicated by pluralization (Druz’ya, Bubliki), archaiza-tion (Graf Orlov”, Lanch”), transliteration (original names are represented in Latin letters: Dvor, Kotleta), polygraphization (mixes of Russian and Latin letters: VODNYY [Water]), paragraphemes (#FARSH), barbarization (The Lapsha) and others. The results of transonymisation are toporestauronyms (Evropa, London), anthroporestauronyms (Marko Polo, Mishel’), mythorestauronyms (Gulliver, KRUZO), ideorestauronyms (Gusarskaya ballada) and others. Derivation may be lexical (Banket-Furshet, SALATOV), syntactic (Tol’ko segodnya, Dushevnaya Madam) and graphic (100lovka, VinoGrad). 3. Apart from the brevity and convenience of the pronunciation, euphony plays an important role in the choice of a name. This is evidenced by the names GogoT-MogoT, Ladushki Oladushki, Iskusno i Vkusno, and the reduplications VokVok, Momo, CHIR-CHIR, ZamZam.

Keywords

Authors

References