This article proposes a methodology for the cognitive-grammatical analysis of geographical names, informed by the principles of enactivism. The approach rests on the hypothesis that toponyms encode spatial orientation patterns shaped through embodied human experience. The study draws on microtoponyms, oikonyms, and hydronyms from six historical-ethnographic regions of the Republic of Belarus (two districts in each). The theoretical framework integrates construction grammar, conceptual metonymy and metaphor theories. Within this framework, the toponymic system is organized around a primary reference point — typically the speaker’s place of residence — and is examined as a set of holistic constructions used to navigate locally meaningful space. Toponymic relations are described both vertically and horizontally, using recurring naming patterns found in speech. These patterns grow through recursive use across different spatial zones. Mapping names onto spatial reference systems reveals key reference points in toponymic space, identifies the basic model of the toponymic system, and the forms through which it is realized. These constructions become conventionalized in everyday speech, supporting orientation by reference to background landmarks, as well as descriptions of qualitative or possessive characteristics of objects. The presence of regularly formed, non-central toponyms, located at varying distances from the core but not linked into a single network, suggests a functional hierarchy within the system that supports orientation in distinct areas. The analysis of semantic extension within these constructions highlights the differing roles of metonymy and metaphor in the development of the system. The proposed methodology frames toponym creation as a human activity linking perception and spatial movement. It uncovers the spatial meanings of holistic toponyms, the recursive structure of their grammatical semantics, and the extent to which their functional status is determined by the location of their referents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
А. І. Копач (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: