ZOONYMS IN THE LITERARY TEXT
ZOONYMS IN THE LITERARY TEXT

Summary/Abstract: The present study draws on linguistic, morpho-syntactic, critical, and literary theory research by renowned scholars such as Grigore Brâncuș, Bogdan Petriceicu Hașdeu, Gabriela Pană Dindelegan, Adina Dragomirescu, Isabela Nedelcu, Camelia Ușurelu, Răzvan Bran, and Garabet Ibrăileanu. It approaches the theme of zoonyms from a distinctive perspective, applying it to the literary works of major Romanian authors (Ion Luca Caragiale, Marin Preda, Ion Agârbiceanu, I. A. Bassarabescu, Emil Gârleanu, Tudor Arghezi, Cezar Petrescu, Calistrat Hogaș). As an exception, the study also includes a fragment from a fable by La Fontaine, notable as a denominative invention. The work focuses on the use of proper animal names in these texts, analyzing them linguistically in terms of form, content, and semantic connotations, as well as the affective and emotional impact such denominations may have on a sensitive reader. The choice of this theme is motivated by the desire to explore the fascinating universe of “those who do not speak,” through the act of naming—a proper name that individualizes a speechless being, fulfilling, much like anthroponyms, three functions: identification, address, and designation, as reflected in the selected texts. The analysis examines etymological and morpho-syntactic aspects relevant to these functions, along with the inflectional forms that realize the semantic triad animate + personal + sex, and the casual homonyms that carry affective-qualifying components. The study also highlights the fact that masculine zoonyms, like masculine proper names of persons, being invariable in inflection, cannot mark case through phonetic alternations, endings, or the enclitic definite article, but only through the synthetic markers a, ai, ale. By contrast, feminine zoonyms mark case through endings and the enclitic definite article. Some proper names derived with diminutive suffixes deviate from the inflectional rules of personal names—often due to speakers’ lack of linguistic training—leading to incorrect dative-genitive forms. Other zoonyms are semantically defined within the framework of symmetrical or asymmetrical kinship relations. Thus, beyond denomination and morpho-syntactic features, this study also explores pragmatic and stylistic aspects of zoonym usage.

• Details
• Contents