Geographical names in the tension field between communicative function and political appropriation

CHAIR

Peter Jordan

CO-CHAIR

DESCRIPTION

Geographical names are elements of a language and already languages are not only means of communication but very frequently politically instrumentalized. This is even more true for geographical names, place names or toponyms with their significant symbolic power that can be derived from their function as indicators and supporters of space-related identity. They are for this very reason all but politically innocent and frequently appropriated for political purposes. This may lead them into conflict with straightforward communication, their primary task. Thus, it will need some time until Gulf of America as the new US endonym for the Gulf of Mexico will be as well-established and as well-known as its predecessor. When countries ask the international community to use the endonyms of their country name in all kinds of communication, they do not take into account the difficulties of deriving adjectives or inhabitant names in other languages from the endonym. When a new political power wishes to have its imprint on the linguistic landscape by applying new names for main streets and squares, it disregards the fact that some people will continue using the former name resulting in ambiguity that can even be dangerous in emergency situations.
The session is to highlight the theoretical background of this dichotomy as well as typical examples of political appropriation and their impact on the communicative function of geographical names.