MYTHONYMY AS A SECTOR OF THE ONOMASTIC SPACE IN ENGLISH FOLK TALES: DISTRIBUTION, TYPE, AND NARRATIVE FUNCTION
PDF

Keywords

mythonymy
onomastics
English folk tales
narrative function
folklore
supernatural creatures
Propp
actantial model
cultural symbolism

How to Cite

MYTHONYMY AS A SECTOR OF THE ONOMASTIC SPACE IN ENGLISH FOLK TALES: DISTRIBUTION, TYPE, AND NARRATIVE FUNCTION. (2026). Qo‘qon DPI. Ilmiy Xabarlar Jurnali, 8(04), 1380-1392. https://doi.org/10.70728/b.series.v08.i04.197

Abstract

This paper examines mythonymy — the naming of mythological figures, legendary heroes, deities, and supernatural beings — as a structurally and culturally significant sector of the onomastic space in English folk tales. The study is prompted by an observable gap in existing research: while the formal and thematic properties of English folk narrative have been extensively studied, the onomastic dimension — and specifically the mythonymic sub- system — has not been subjected to systematic corpus-based analysis. Drawing on a corpus of 50 tales selected from Joseph Jacobs's English Fairy Tales (1890) and Haase's Oxford Dictionary of Fairy Tales (2017), the research classifies 83 identified mythonyms by type (deity, hero, supernatural creature) and by narrative role (protagonist, antagonist, helper/guide), using a dual-method design combining frequency analysis with functionally grounded qualitative interpretation informed by Propp's morphological model and Greimas's actantial framework. The findings show that supernatural creatures are the most common mythonymic type (n = 43, 51.8%), followed by heroes (n = 29, 34.9%) and deities (n = 11, 13.3%). Across tale genres, Wonder Tales contain the most varied mythonymic distribution, while Animal Tales concentrate heavily on supernatural creature naming and Cumulative Tales are relatively mythonym-sparse. Functionally, antagonistic roles account for the largest share (n = 37, 44.6%), though the gap between protagonist (n = 24, 28.9%) and helper/guide (n = 22, 26.5%) roles is narrower than might be assumed. These results confirm the strategic deployment of names as narrative and semiotic resources in English folk tradition, while also raising questions about the limits of purely functional classification of mythonyms.
PDF

References

1. Ashliman, D. L. (1987). A guide to folktales in the English language. Greenwood Press.

2. Bettelheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. Alfred A. Knopf.

3. Briggs, K. M. (1976). A dictionary of fairies: Hobgoblins, brownies, bogies, and other supernatural creatures. Allen Lane.

4. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

5. Dégh, L. (1969). Folktales and society: Story-telling in a Hungarian peasant community (E. M. Schossberger, Trans.). Indiana University Press.

6. Dundes, A. (1965). The morphology of North American Indian folktales. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

7. Felecan, O. (Ed.). (2014). Name and naming: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

8. Gary-Prieur, M.-N. (1994). Grammaire du nom propre. Presses Universitaires de France.

9. Greimas, A. J. (1983). Structural semantics: An attempt at a method (D. McDowell, R. Schleifer, & A. Velie, Trans.). University of Nebraska Press.

10. Haase, D. (Ed.). (2017). The Oxford dictionary of fairy tales (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

11. Hough, C. (Ed.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of names and naming. Oxford University Press.

12. Jacobs, J. (1890). English fairy tales. David Nutt.

13. Jespersen, O. (1965). The philosophy of grammar. Norton. (Original work published

14. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

15. Lüthi, M. (1982). The European folktale: Form and nature (J. D. Niles, Trans.). Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

16. Nicolaisen, W. F. H. (2011). The biblical onomasticon and the study of biblical place names. In E. Brylla & M. Wahlberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Onomastic Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 1–14). Språk- och folkminnesinstitutet.

17. Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1974). The classic fairy tales. Oxford University Press.

18. Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale (2nd ed., L. Scott, Trans.). University of Texas Press.

19. Room, A. (1996). An alphabetical guide to the language of name studies. Scarecrow Press.

20. Sims-Williams, P. (2006). Ancient Celtic place-names in Europe and Asia Minor. Blackwell.

21. Tatar, M. (1992). Off with their heads! Fairy tales and the culture of childhood. Princeton University Press.

22. Uther, H.-J. (2004). The types of international folktales: A classification and bibliography (FF Communications No. 284–286). Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

23. Van Langendonck, W. (2007). Theory and typology of proper names. Mouton de Gruyter.

24. Zipes, J. (2012). The irresistible fairy tale: The cultural and social history of a genre. Princeton University Press.