Y writes: “From Lameen’s Bluesky I learned of this paper. There was some discussion (or several?) at the blog of the subject of language naming, but this is so extensive and detailed, I thought you might want to have a post on it, rather than just a comment.” I agree, so here’s the post. The paper is “Towards a typology of language names” by Pun Ho Lui; the abstract:
Although language names (i.e. glottonyms) are often mentioned in descriptions of individual languages, the general patterns underlying them are understudied. To narrow the research gap, this study explores four aspects of glottonyms. First, the definition and linguistic properties of endonyms and exonyms are examined. Morphemes meaning ‘our’ and ‘true’ are commonly found in endonyms, while some exonyms have a negative connotation. Second, language markers—items signifying a glottonym—are categorized into lexical and grammatical language markers. Lexical language markers are subsequently classified based on their meanings. Third, glottonyms are classified into 19 types based on their meanings. Some types are further categorized into subtypes. Fourth, the naming motivations of glottonyms are explored, e.g. some glottonyms are used for disambiguating the glottonym meaning from other meanings. Finally, the challenges faced in constructing this typology are discussed.
You can see a more detailed list, with discussion, at Lameen’s post. Here’s a bit I found interesting:
A derogatory exonym may undergo amelioration, i.e. the connotation becomes less negative. Lepcha is derived from the Nepali word(s) lɑ̄pce or lɑ̄pca ‘inarticulate speech’ with a derogatory connotation, but now Lepcha is used without this connotation (Plaisier 2007). There is no known glottonym in which the connotation has undergone pejoration, i.e. the connotations have become (more) negative.
Recent Comments