Content uploaded by Jan Tent
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan Tent on Jan 28, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh.
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
David Blair
Australian National Placenames Survey, AUSTRALIA
Jan Tent
Australian National University, AUSTRALIA
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Abstract
A functional and systematic typology of toponyms is an essential instrument for the toponymist
wishing to investigate the naming practices and patterns of a region or era. To this end, the Australian
National Placenames Survey developed a toponym typology for Australia (Tent & Blair 2011). This was
characterized as a “typology of motivations for naming”. Although various researchers have used this
typology with seeming success, further application of the typology to the survey’s database of toponyms
has revealed the need for a re-evaluation of the naming process. This has occasioned a modification of
some toponym categories, generating a revised typology which can be considered a “typology of
expressions of the naming intention.”
Keywords: toponym, typology, motivation, intention, expression, placename, classification.
As with many fields of research, the study of placenames may be conducted through either an
examination of a case or a cluster analysis of cases. This contrast in research paradigms is most
commonly expressed in the generic terms “qualitative” vs. “quantitative” research. These terms,
however, focus on the type of data gathered and analyzed, not on the actual process and practice of the
kind of research conducted. The Australian National Placenames Survey (ANPS) has, therefore,
adopted the terms “intensive” and “extensive” toponymy respectively to reflect more precisely the two
research approaches (Tent 2015). The term “intensive” is used in the sense of “relating, or pertaining
to intensity, or degree of intrinsic strength, depth, or fullness, as distinguished from external spatial
extent or amount” (OED Online 2020). “Extensive,” on the other hand, is used in the sense of
“pertaining to extension; denoting a large number of objects [...], [which] has the effect of extending
or enlarging in scope,” or of “extending over or occupying a large surface or space; having a wide extent,
widely extended; [...] far-reaching, large in comprehension or scope; wide in application or operation;
comprehensive; [...] denoting a large number of objects” (OED Online 2020).
Thus, intensive toponymy aims to gather an in-depth understanding of a particular toponym by
closely investigating the history and nature of a single toponym or of a small focused sample of
toponyms. The conclusions drawn from such a study cannot be easily generalized, and only
propositions of the nature of informed assertions or hypotheses may be made. In contrast, an extensive
study empirically investigates toponymic data through cluster analysis, and asks specific questions to
discover underlying patterns of relationships, such as
• Temporal, spatial or ethnic place-naming practices and patterns (e.g., Cavallaro, Perono
Cacciafoco & Tan 2019; Cooper 2020; Jenjekwa 2018; Perono Cacciafoco & Shia 2020;
Steenkamp 2015; Tent & Slatyer 2009; Zhenhua et al. 2018)
• Regional distributions of certain types of toponyms, or geographic features (e.g., Cooper
2020; Tent 2017, 2020)
• The geomorphology or topography of a region (by concentrating on feature terms/sets) (e.g.,
Hughes 2018)
For an extensive study of name types to have any practical value, it must be based on a
comprehensive and effective typology. This was the underlying principle for the development of the
ANPS toponym typology, a system for Australian toponymists to use when classifying placenames
according to the way in which the toponym expresses the naming intention. In 2011, Tent and Blair
outlined a toponym typology developed to classify the specific elements of Australia’s toponyms as well
as to categorize its toponymic patterns in general (see Table 1, which presents this original typology
developed in 2009) (see also Tent & Blair 2009, 2014). Since then, the system has been employed by
ANPS as well as by a number of other researchers and authors around the world (Amenyedzi 2015;
Awukuvi 2019; Barteaux 2016; Beconytė et al. 2019; Bölling 2013; Cooper 2020; Jenjekwa 2018; Ji et
al. 2019; Klugah 2013; Laaboudi & Marouane 2018; Lâm 2016; Nash & Chuk 2012; Newton 2016;
Steenkamp 2015, inter alia).
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
David Blair and Jan Tent
ans-names.pitt.edu
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
32
Table 1 presents the original ANPS typology, showing the toponym categories which were
developed under the principle of the motivation for the bestowal of toponyms. As we shall show, this
principle was somewhat misguided. The nine superordinate toponym categories and their
subordinate categories were designed to: ensure the typology had enough specific categories to cover
all types of toponyms; to reveal the distinctions in their naming intention and expressions; ensure
the categories were mutually exclusive, and that the typology was flexible enough to allow for
additions of categories without causing fundamental structural changes.
Table 1: The 2009/2014 Typology
0 Unknown
Where the meaning, reference, referent, or origin of the toponym is
unknown
1 Descriptive
Indicating an inherent characteristic of the feature
1.1 Topographic
Describing the physical appearance of a feature either qualitatively or
metaphorically
1.2 Relative
Indicating position of a feature relative to another, either
chronologically or spatially
1.3 Locational
Indicating the location or orientation of a feature
1.4 Numerical/Measurement
Measuring or counting elements of a named feature
2 Associative
Indicating something which is always or often associated with the
feature or its physical context
2.1 Local
Indicating something of a topographical, environmental, or biological
nature seen with or associated with the feature
2.2 Occupation/Activity
Indicating an occupation or habitual activity associated with the
feature
2.3 Structures
Indicating a manufactured structure associated with the feature
3 Occurrent
Recording an event, incident, occasion (or date), or action associated
with the feature
3.1 Incident
Recording an event, incident, or action associated with the feature
3.2 Occasion
Recognizing a time or date associated with the feature
4 Evaluative
Reflecting the emotional reaction of the namer, or a strong connotation
associated with the feature
4.1 Commendatory
Reflecting/propounding a positive response to the feature
4.2 Condemnatory
Reflecting/propounding a negative response to the feature
5 Shift
Use of a toponym, in whole or part, from another location or feature
5.1 Transfer
Transferred from another place
5.2 Feature Shift
Copied from an adjacent feature of a different type
5.3 Relational
Using a qualifier within the toponym to indicate orientation from an
adjacent toponym of the same feature type
6 Indigenous
Importing an Indigenous toponym or word into the Introduced system
6.1 Word, not being a toponym
Non-toponymic word—importing an Indigenous word, not being a
toponym
6.2 Original placename
Importing an Indigenous toponym already used for that location or
feature
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
6.3 Dual name
Restoring an original Indigenous toponym as part of a dual-naming
process
7 Eponymous
Commemorating or honoring a person or other named entity by using
a proper name, title or eponym substitute as a toponym
7.1 Person(s)
Using the proper name of a person or group to name a feature
7.1.1 Expedition member
Where the named person is a member of the expedition
7.1.2 Other
Where feature is named after an eminent person, patron, official,
noble, politician, family member or friend, etc.
7.2 Other Living Entity
Using the proper name of a non-human living entity to name a feature
7.3 Non-Living Entity
Using the proper name of a non-living entity to name a feature
7.3.1 Vessel
Named after a vessel, usually one associated with the “discovery”
7.3.2 Other
Named after a named non-living entity
8 Linguistic Innovation
Introducing a new linguistic form, by manipulation of language
8.1 Blend
Blending of two toponyms, words or morphemes
8.2 Anagram
Using the letters of another toponym to create a new anagrammatic
form
8.3 Humor
Using language play with humorous intent to create a new toponym
9 Erroneous
Introducing a new form through garbled transmission, misspelling,
mistaken meaning, etc.
9.1 Popular etymology
Mistaken interpretation of the origin of a toponym, leading to a
corruption of the linguistic form
9.2 Form confusion
Alteration of the linguistic form, from a misunderstanding or bad
transmission of the original
This typology is founded upon two distinct processes: identifying a set of intuitive semantic
components relevant to toponymic motivation; and producing a set of motivation labels by a logical
sequence of those components. These labels produced nine major classes of toponym specifics, which
were further subdivided into 29 optional sub-classes (without the intervention of further semantic
components). The typology is centered on the “mechanism” of the naming process. In other words, it
is based on the modus operandi of the naming. Where available and relevant, it takes into account the
procedures, methods, strategies, motivation, original reference and/or referents of names. Via these
processes it was possible to define toponym categories which largely avoided the previously-
experienced problems of overlap and inconsistencies of classification seen in previous typologies. In
the survey’s deployment of the typology, it became clear that certain refinements to the system were
necessary if it were to deal more effectively with the data. The schema has also benefited from the work
of toponymists in other regions (notably, Jenkins 2018) who have applied the typology and noted
possible improvements.
The initial typology was founded upon identifying “motivations” for naming a geographic feature
or place. Over time, it became clear that this focus appeared to concentrate on the namer and the
concomitant psychology underlying the naming of a feature, rather than the feature itself and its
context. Such a view made the process of naming seem to be more deliberative than is often the case.
Alternative terms such as “mechanisms” or “methods” were initially considered, but these too seemed
to make the process of naming to be more calculated. This characterization of the naming process has,
therefore, been discarded; instead, a more intuitive conceptual framework—one that required a more
extensive basis than that simple contrastive relationship—has been developed. Nevertheless, the
notion of “motivation for naming” is by no means irrelevant. Indeed, that is where the development of
this revised toponym typology begins.1
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
David Blair and Jan Tent
ans-names.pitt.edu
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
34
The Whys and Wherefores of Place-Naming
The aim of the ANPS is to document, from both written and oral sources, the history of the nation’s
English-based toponymic system. The focus is on natural feature and habitation names, recording
their history from the point at which they entered the Australian English context. The survey attempts
to answer five WH- questions for each placename:
• What (kind of feature) is it?
• Where is it?
• Who named it?
• When was it named?
• Why was it given that name?
The what/where/who/when questions relate to the toponymic form as a whole; that is, to both the
specific and the generic elements of the placename.2 Answers to these questions respond to historical
and linguistic research methods. The final question—the why question—focuses on the specific
element of the toponym, and is often the most difficult to answer, because the reason for the choice of
the particular specific element is not often documented and the namer’s intention at the point of
naming is a matter for speculation (see Tent 2015).
The classification of the specific element and its relationship to the namer’s intention has long
been the subject of consideration by toponymists and other linguists (see Algeo 1988; Baker &
Carmony 1975; Bréelle 2013; Gasque 2005; Gläser 1996; McArthur 1928; McArthur 1986; Pearce 1955;
Rennick 2005; Smith 1993, 1996; Stewart 1954, 1970; Zelinsky 2002, inter alia). Those previous
attempts had suffered from an apparently ad hoc approach which produced gaps in classifications,
ambiguous definitions, and overlapping categories. That literature was surveyed in some detail by Tent
and Blair (2009, 2014) and an alternative approach was outlined. This model did not claim to provide
a universal typology for international use; rather, the aim was to enable the ANPS to categorize
Australia’s toponyms, recognizing that the survey’s scope extended only to the continent’s geographic
features and inhabited localities. In order to produce a systematic record of the answers to the why
question in particular, a taxonomic approach was developed which generated labels that were intended
to be clear, unambiguous, distinct and intuitive.
Motivation, Mechanism, or Method?
One key aspect of the attempt to categorize possible answers to the why question relates to the focus
of that interrogation. Is the question “Why did the namer do that?” Or is it really “Why did the feature
get that name?” It has become clear that the latter is the intent behind the why question. The analysis
of a given interpretation (that is, a purported explanation for the origin of a toponym’s specific
element) is an attempt to identify what it was in the nature of the feature or in the occasion of its
naming that might have generated its toponymic form. That is, the focus is on the feature and its
setting, rather than on any suggested interior monologue of the person responsible for the act of
naming. It is, after all, impossible to enter into the namer’s mind after the event with any degree of
certainty. Characterizing the task as identifying “motivations” for naming (as the earlier version of this
typology did) seems to focus on the namer rather than on the feature and its context.
Deconstructing the “Why”
The 2020 revised ANPS toponym typology (Blair & Tent 2020) implemented certain refinements to
the original typology. Some categories were deleted, whilst others were modified. Underlying these
changes was a re-examination of the naming process itself, which led to the identification of three
stages in that process: the primary motivation, the intention of the naming, and its linguistic
expression.
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
The primary motivation for naming a place is “to distinguish” it from other places. In other
words, the naming process is a contrastive one. This principle was expressed by Locke (1690: Book III,
ch. 3, §5) when he argued humans have “an occasion to mark particularity” in communication, in other
words, to differentiate:
[…] what things have proper names, and why. Besides persons, countries also, cities,
rivers, mountains, and other the like distinctions of place have usually found peculiar
names, and that for the same reason; they being such as men have often an occasion to
mark particularly, and, as it were, set before others in their discourses with them. And I
doubt not but, if we had reason to mention particular horses as often as we have to
mention particular men, we should have proper names for the one, as familiar as for the
other, and Bucephalus would be a word as much in use as Alexander. And therefore we
see that, amongst jockeys, horses have their proper names to be known and
distinguished by, as commonly as their servants: because, amongst them, there is often
occasion to mention this or that particular horse when he is out of sight.
Stewart (1954) echoed this in the seminal article “A classification of placenames” where his
classificatory system was based “upon the proposition that all place-names arise from a single
motivation, that is, the desire to distinguish and to separate a particular place from places in general”
(86). Indeed, the ANPS definition of a “toponym” encapsulates this principle: a toponym is “a name
for a place”, or “a place and its name”, not “a name for places”. Of course, a certain linguistic form will
generate more than one toponym if, for instance, the location differs (e.g., Perth, Scotland and Perth,
Western Australia) or if the feature type is different (e.g., Rose Bay the suburb on Sydney Harbour,
and Rose Bay the bay in Sydney Harbour) (Blair 2017).
The second stage in the naming process, the intention of the naming, asks the questions:
• Is it to foreground a physical characteristic of the feature?
• Is it to commemorate something or someone?
• Is it to create a new linguistic form?
• Or is it, indeed, a combination of more than one intention?
The third stage, the expression (or linguistic form) of the intention, asks:
• What kind of name should be used?
o a descriptive word or phrase?
o an eponym?
o or an invented, new name that seems pleasingly appropriate to the place, etc.?
The theoretical choices are more clearly displayed in Figure 1.
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
David Blair and Jan Tent
ans-names.pitt.edu
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
36
Figure 1: The Relationship Between “Motivation”, “Intention”, and “Expression”
Figure 1 illustrates the dynamics of how the three stages of the naming process interconnect to produce
the various toponymic linguistic expressions. The analysis of toponym types that this schema enables,
then, is based on the possible answers to the question “Why did the feature get that name?” which in
turn lead to the various expressions of the naming intentions in Figure 1 (and which are defined
and illustrated in Table 2 below). The previous characterization of the analysis as a “typology of
motivations for naming” can now be more clearly seen to be a “typology of expressions of the naming
intention”—that is, a categorization of the kinds of names that can be generated to distinguish one
place feature from another.3 The remainder of this paper provides an explanation of the developments
in the typology since the earlier version was released and explains the reasons for the changes that
have been made.
The ANPS Approach to Toponymy
The methodology of ANPS is based on a progression through the three key elements of each
placename: identification, documentation, and interpretation. The identification of a toponym is
obtained by establishing its linguistic form, its feature type and its location. Once that is done, the
major research effort of the ANPS is directed at finding the historical and cultural information which
will establish the “story” of the placename. This information forms the documentation module of the
EXPRESSION
What kind of name will
express the desired
intention?
INTENTION
How shall this be done?
MOTIVATION
Why should this feature be
named?
To distinguish it from
other features by...
characterizing it
through a(n)...
1 DESCRIPTION
3 EVALUATION
2 ASSOCIATION
commemorating
or honoring it
through a(n)...
4 OCCASION
5 COPY
6 EPONYM
creating a new
linguistic form
through...
7 INNOVATION
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
ANPS database. From the recorded documentation for each toponym, ANPS attempts to write a
“biography” of that toponym, answering the WH- questions associated with its origin.4
Interpretations
In some cases, the available documentation for a toponym may not tell us anything about the why; the
information may pertain only to the other WH- questions. More usually, however, the background
story as revealed in the documents allows us to include within an interpretation an assessment of the
why; the typology is then applied to such interpretations (or “stories of origin”).
The application of a typology tag to these interpretations enables interrogation of the ANPS
database for such questions as “How many toponyms are said to be attributed to members of
exploration parties or their patrons?” or “What proportion of placenames is based on the topography
of the feature?” or “What were the naming practices of X as revealed by the types of toponyms
bestowed?”.
Revisions to Toponym Categories
Deleted Categories
Three categories have been removed from the original schema because further work on classifying
interpretations made it clear that their original inclusion was misconceived.
• 0 “Unknown”
This code was included in previous versions of the typology table, though not in the
taxonomic display. Although such a code is useful in certain statistical procedures to indicate
a NULL result, it is now seen as unnecessary within the typology. When the available
documentation for a placename reveals no information about the why aspect of its origin
(as opposed to the other WH- questions), then categorization of the way the naming intent
is expressed is neither necessary nor possible.
• 6 “Indigenous”
It has become clear that marking a placename as having its origin in an Australian
Indigenous language is a matter of etymology, and is in itself irrelevant to this typology.
Indicating the language of origin for a placename is a valid part of a toponymic database
(although the label might more properly have been “Indigenous-derived”); but any system
designed to record it must be distinct from this typology. This is not to say, of course, that
placenames which have a non-English etymology have no interpretation recorded and no
typology category tagged: if the “why” question is addressed in the supporting documents,
they may be listed against such categories as “Copied” or “Innovative”. Both of those
categories, in fact, have been useful in the treatment of toponyms from Indigenous
languages: in many instances, a new placename has been introduced (or “copied”) into the
Australian English toponymy because it was the pre-existing Indigenous name for that
place; and, even more frequently, new linguistic forms have been introduced as placenames,
based on Indigenous words which were thought to be euphonious or semantically
appropriate.
• 9 “Erroneous”
The category is now recognized as being an invalid tag, because the model does not include
a judgment on the validity of interpretations—that is a separate issue. “Popular etymology”,
one of the original subcategories, entails a judgment of a naïve and false belief about a
toponym’s origin and would produce a low probability rating within the appropriate
typology set. The second original subcategory, “Form confusion,” has undergone more than
one stage of reassessment during the revision process. A first response was to move it to
“Innovative”, on the grounds that the misunderstanding of the linguistic form resulted in
the creation of a new toponymic element. Further consideration made it clear that this move
was misconceived; in terms of the choices that lead to an “Innovative” expression (Table 2),
there is no “motivation to name” or “intention to create” involved when form confusion
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
David Blair and Jan Tent
ans-names.pitt.edu
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
38
produces a new toponym. This second subcategory, therefore, has also been deleted from
the schema without any requirement to find it a new home.
Other Revisions
Continued application of the classification to toponymic data has indicated that four of the original
categories required revision.5
• 1 “Descriptive”
o The former subcategory “Numerical/Measurement” has been deleted, since all relevant
examples can be covered by 1.1 “Topographic” (e.g., Cape Three Points, where the
shape of the feature is the key aspect), or by 1.3 “Locational” (e.g., Three Mile Creek,
where distance from an identified location is the defining characteristic). The simple
occurrence of a number or numeral within the toponymic form does not define the
nature of the expression.
o The subcategory “Relative” has been renamed and redefined. In earlier versions of the
classification, it stood in opposition to category 5.3 “Relational,” and a footnote offered
the explanation that 1.2 “Relative” referred to features while 5.3 “Relational” referred
to toponyms. The former had the definition “indicating position of a feature relative to
another, either chronologically or spatially;” the latter was defined as “using a qualifier
within the toponym to indicate orientation from an adjacent toponym of the same
feature type.” It is now clear that the distinction was misconceived, as Jenkins (2018)
pointed out. Both have been replaced by 1.2 “Relational”, “denoting a relationship
between a feature and another feature nearby, either in time, space or dimensions”.
o A new subcategory 1.4 “Functional” has been introduced, to allow for features such as
Australian Capital Territory and Landmark Point where the specific element has, for
example, an administrative or instrumental aspect.
• 5 “Shift”
o The category has been renamed as “Copied”, because “Shift” was seen to imply
replacement or removal of a toponym rather than the re-use of its toponymic form.
o As noted above, 5.3 “Relational” could not be sustained as a subclass in opposition to
1.2 “Relative”. A feature such as East Sydney was no more “relational” and no less
“locational” than North Head or South West Cape. The subclass was therefore deleted
from the classification.
o The subcategory 5.1 “Transfer” has now been expanded to distinguish between
locational and linguistic duplication, to allow for the distinction between copying the
name form from another place or from another language. It has been replaced by the
two subcategories 5.1 “Locational” and 5.2 “Linguistic”.
o The formerly separate subcategory 5.2 “Feature shift”, meaning “copied from an
adjacent feature of a different type”, has been subsumed within the new 5.1 “Locational”,
meaning “using the name of a feature from another place”.
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
• 7 “Eponymous”
o The category has been renumbered as 6, as a result of the deletion of the “Indigenous”
class.
o A number of other minor additions and re-namings have been implemented.
o Within the subcategory 6.1 “Human” (formerly 7.1 “Persons”), the two original
divisions of “Expedition member” and “Other” have been replaced by:
6.1.1 “Namer”
6.1.2 “Notable person”
6.1.3 “Colleague”
6.1.4 “Family member or friend”
6.1.5 “Associated person”
o Within the subcategory 6.3 “Non-animate entity” (formerly 7.3 “Non-living entity”),
the two original divisions of “Vessel” and “Other” have been replaced by:
6.3.1 “Notable abstract entity”
6.3.2 “Named concrete entity”
6.3.3 “Expedition vessel”
o A new subcategory 6.4 “Literary and mythical entities” has been added.
• 8 “Linguistic Innovation”
o The category has been renumbered as 7 “Innovative”, as a result of the deletion of an
earlier class in the schema.
o The subcategory 8.1 “Blend” has been deleted. Its presence in the classification created
an overlap of categories, since all available examples are blends of eponyms or existing
toponyms; they are best treated as 6 “Eponymous” or as 5 “Copied”.
o The subcategory 8.2 “Anagram” has been deleted and is now treated as merely an
expression of the subcategory 8.3 “Humor” (now numbered 7.1).
o The subcategory 7.2 “Aptness” has been added to the classification to cover euphonious
or ameliorative creativity.
o The category now consists of the following two subclasses: “Humor” and “Aptness”.
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
David Blair and Jan Tent
ans-names.pitt.edu
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
40
The Revised Typology
The modifications outlined above have resulted in a typology which is somewhat simpler, with the
number of main categories reduced from nine to seven. The category “Eponymous” is still the most
complex in its substructure, with the greatest number of subclasses. The reduced typology is reflected
in a new taxonomic representation (Figure 2) which lies behind it. The intention of such a highly
explicit taxonomy, with its catalogue of terms, is to reduce or eliminate ambiguity within the
toponymic system.
Figure 2: Taxonomy of Australian Toponym Specifics
The construction of such a taxonomy must begin with a specification of the intuitive semantic
components that form its foundation (Table 2). These semantic elements have not been chosen from
an a priori list, but are intuitively produced as part of the step-by-step process of distinguishing the
category labels from each other. They are therefore arbitrary and subjective, to some degree. They are
also heuristic, in that the application of these components is directed towards a particular output: a
set of labels which will usefully tag the expression of a namer’s intent in the toponymic event. If the
output is found to be useful, then the structure of the semantic analysis which led to it may be regarded
as having been validated. On the other hand, a catalogue which groups labels non-intuitively or which
omits significant intentional options would indicate a necessary revision of the semantic components
or of the taxonomic structure.
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Table 2: Semantic Components and their Definitions
Semantic Component
Definition
[+DESCRIPTIVE]
Reflects a characteristic of the feature or its environment
[+EMOTIVE]
Reflects a subjective response by the namer to the feature
[+COMMEMORATIVE]
Honours a person or a significant event or occasion
[+INHERENT]
Characteristic of the feature itself, rather than of its surrounds or context
[+ONOMASTIC]
Re-applies an existing name
[+TOPONYMIC]
Re-applies an existing placename
The taxonomy is represented by the tree structure of Figure 2 in which the semantic components are
progressively applied, to proceed from an initial level of abstraction (or generality) to a more highly
specified level of toponymic expression. It is, of course, possible to further subdivide the categories by
applying other semantic components. Although we have not proceeded to further specification for the
Australian English context in which the survey operates, in other contexts it may be desirable or even
necessary to do so. The categories of the current typology are enumerated in Table 3, together with
their definitions and examples. Those categories mirror the items displayed in the Expression column
of Figure 1 above, which can now be seen to be merely the taxonomic tree in a different form.
Table 3 shows a reduced typology in terms of categories and some minor changes to existing
categories as explained above.6
Table 3: The 2020 Revised Toponym Typology
Toponym type
Explication
Examples
1 DESCRIPTIVE
Using a name denoting an
inherent characteristic of
the feature
1.1 Topographic
Denoting the physical
appearance of a feature
either literally or
metaphorically
Cape Manifold named due to the
number of high hills over it; Broken
Bay named due to some broken land
that appeared to form a bay
1.2 Relational
Denoting a relationship
between a feature and
another feature nearby,
either in time, space or
dimensions
Old Adaminaby current name for the
original town of Adaminaby; East
Peak the easternmost of the two peaks
of Mt Cougal
1.3 Locational
Denoting the location or
orientation of a feature
Cape Capricorn lying directly on the
Tropic of Capricorn
1.4 Functional
Denoting the function of a
feature
Australian Capital Territory
designated to provide the site for
Australia’s capital city, Canberra. The
name is descriptive of the function;
Memorial Park a memorial to the
servicemen who fought in WWI the
name is descriptive of its function
2 ASSOCIATIVE
Using a name denoting
something associated with
the feature or its context
2.1 Environment
Denoting something in the
local natural environment
which is seen with or
associated with the feature
Lizard Island because the only land
animals seen were lizards; Belrose
which reflects the flora endemic to the
area, the Christmas bell, and the bush
rose (see also 7.2)
2.2 Occupation/activity
Denoting an occupation,
habitual activity, or related
artefact associated with the
feature
Observatory Hill site of Sydney’s
original observatory; Try Pot Beach try
pots found there from former sealing
station
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
David Blair and Jan Tent
ans-names.pitt.edu
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
42
2.3 Structure
Denoting a manufactured
structure associated with
the feature
Telephone Gap a saddle over which a
telephone line used to pass
3 EVALUATIVE
Using a name reflecting the
emotive reaction of the
namer, or a strong
connotation associated
with the feature
3.1 Commendatory
Reflecting/propounding a
positive response to the
feature
Australia Felix a region named to
distinguish it from the parched deserts
of the interior country; Hope Islands
so named because of the high hopes of
being able to reach them
3.2 Condemnatory
Reflecting/propounding a
negative response to the
feature
Worlds End because of the lonely and
desolate nature of the area; Mount
Hopeless because a new and still more
disheartening feature was seen from its
summit
4 OCCURRENT
Using a name recording an
event, incident, occasion or
date when the feature was
named
4.1 Incident
Recording an event or
incident which led to the
naming of the feature
Indian Head a headland where a group
of Australian Indigenous people were
seen to be assembled; Mount
Disappointment named due to the
inability of being able to ascend it
4.2 Occasion
Recognizing a time or date
when the feature was
named
Whitsunday Passage after the day on
which it was discovered; Trinity Bay
after the day on which it was
discovered
5 COPIED
Copying the name-form
from another place or from
another language
5.1 Locational
Using the name of a
feature from another place
River Derwent after the River
Derwent in Cumberland, England;
Cape Dromedary from the nearby
Mount Dromedary
5.2 Linguistic
Using the name-form (or
its calque) which the
feature has in another
language
Groote Eylandt identified by that
name on 17th century Dutch charts;
Steep Point a calque of the original
‘Steyle Houck’ named by the 17th
century Dutch explorer Willem de
Vlamingh
6 EPONYMOUS
Using the name of a person
or other named entity by
using a proper name, title,
or eponym substitute as a
toponym
6.1 Human
Using the name of a person
or of a group of people
6.1.1 Namer
Using the namer’s own
name as the toponym
Forster named by William Forster,
Premier of NSW (1859-1860); Tasman
Island named by Abel Tasman
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
6.1.2 Notable
person
Using the name of an
eminent person, patron,
official, noble, politician
etc., or the name of a group
of such people
Cape Byron after Captain John Byron
of the HMS Dolphin (1764-1766);
Gosford after the Earl of Gosford
6.1.3 Colleague
Using the name of a
member of an expedition
or survey involved in the
discovery or naming of the
feature, or the name of the
group so involved
Point Hicks after crewmember
Lieutenant Hicks on Cook’s HMS
Endeavour; Cape Banks after Joseph
Banks on Cook’s HMS Endeavour
6.1.4 Family
member or friend
Using the name of a family
member or friend of the
namer
Mount Eliza named by Captain
Middleton after his wife Eliza;
Denmark River after naval
surgeon Alexander Denmark
6.1.5 Associated
person
Using the name of a person
or a group connected to the
feature as, for example, a
founder, builder, owner or
local inhabitant
Bennelong Point after an Indigenous
man who lived on the point; Frenchs
Forest after James French who set up
sawmills in the area
6.2 Other animate entity
Using the proper name of a
non-human animate entity
Norseman after the horse, Hardy
Norseman; Banana after a bullock,
Banana
6.3 Non-animate entity
Using the proper name of a
non-animate entity
6.3.1 Notable
abstract entity
Using the name of a
notable occasion, entity or
concept, such as a battle, a
political association or
other abstract category
Admiralty Islands after the British
Admiralty; Staaten River after States
General, the parliament of the Dutch
United Provinces (1623)
6.3.2 Named
concrete entity
Using the name of an
entity such as (a class of) a
ship, train or aircraft
Catalina Bay former base for Catalina
Flying Boats during WWII;
Coolangatta Creek after the schooner
Coolangatta wrecked there in 1846
6.3.3 Expedition
vessel
Using the name of a vessel
involved in the ‘discovery’
or naming of the feature
Endeavour River after Cook’s HMS
Endeavour; Mt Zeehan after Tasman’s
ship Zeehaen
6.4 Literary, biblical, or
mythical entities
Using the name of a figure
or place from literature,
the Bible, or mythology
Ivanhoe after Sir Walter Scott’s novel
Ivanhoe; Oberon after King of the
Fairies, in Shakespeare’s “Midsummer
Night’s Dream”
7 INNOVATIVE
Introducing a new
linguistic form as a
toponym
7.1 Humor
Using language play with
humorous intent to create
a new toponym
Nangiloc after the neighboring town,
Colignan, spelt backwards; Doo Town
because houses in this town have
house-names containing “Doo”, e.g.,
“Doo-little”
7.2 Aptness
Creating a new linguistic
form or importing a word
from another language to
produce a toponym of
pleasing sound, positive
connotation or appropriate
meaning
Orana from a Polynesian word,
because of its euphonious sound and
positive connotation; Belrose, a Sydney
suburb named after flora endemic to
the area, the Christmas bell and the
bush rose (see also 2.1)
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
David Blair and Jan Tent
ans-names.pitt.edu
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
44
It should be noted that toponyms generally receive a single typology tag. However, there can be some
exceptions to this, such as toponyms which have a complex interpretation that seems to require more
than one tag. The name of the Sydney suburb Belrose, for example, can be interpreted both as
associative and as an innovation—it is a placename freshly constructed because of the flora (Christmas
bell) and (bush rose) endemic to the area.
Occasionally there is an apparent exception which on closer inspection turns out to be not so:
Mount Hopeless is a name form that occurs twice in Australia, one applied to a feature in New South
Wales, the other in South Australia. Both name forms were bestowed by explorers on first sighting the
mountain. Based on the explorers’ journal entries made at the occasion of the naming, the latter is
classified as a condemnatory name reflecting the explorer’s attitude at his first sighting of the
mountain; the former is classed as the result of a particular occasion or incident when the explorer
realized that the mountain itself was not the feature he had believed it to be. The take-home message
from these two examples is that the allocation of a toponym tag should not be based upon a semantic
interpretation of the toponym’s name form itself; rather it should be based upon authoritative and
reliable documentary evidence of the circumstances of the name’s bestowal. If none exists to verify
who bestowed the toponym and why, then it is better to refrain from allocating a tag.
Conclusion
Continued application of the typology to toponyms in the Australian context since its original
formulation in 2009 has resulted in the perceived need to revise two aspects of the schema: the
understanding of its basis in the naming process, and the set of categories which characterize that
process. Uncertainty about whether the typology was about motivations in name bestowal, or whether
the taxonomic display showed methods or mechanisms for naming, has been resolved by the
understanding that the motivation (the “why”) leads to a particular intention (the “how”) being
realized by a particular expression (the “what kind”). In other words, as noted above, the typology is
one of “expressions of the naming intention.” Secondly, the continued application of the categories to
placenames within the Australian context has required refinement of those categories as new
expressions of the naming intent have become apparent. It is not suggested that the current schema is
the last word on what may be required for a comprehensive analysis of place-naming within Australia.
Nor is it claimed the typology can be applied in this form without modification to other toponymies—
the survey of the Antarctic territories, currently underway, has already revealed some naming
expressions which lie outside this typology. We do, however, believe that the schema provides a useful
model which can be used to develop other context-dependent typologies which would characterize the
way in which their placenames have been bestowed.
Notes
1 For a detailed account of the revision of the 2009/2014 typology, see Blair & Tent (2020).
2 A placename “generic” is akin to a family name (e.g., Bay, Cape, River, Mount, Lake, Valley, etc.). A
placename “specific” is analogous to a given name (e.g., Boat Harbor, where “Boat”—the specific—
identifies “Harbor”—the generic—which in turn identifies the type of geographic feature named).
Sometimes a generic can become a specific, as in The Basin, or Harbor Beach. Placenames for non-
natural features (especially those for settlements) commonly consist of a single element acting as the
specific: Cairns and Broome. Some placenames of this type have a “built-in” generic element (e.g.,
Newtown, Marrickville, Ashbourne, etc.).
3 There is no claim to be representing any psychological or linguistic processes of the namer when a
feature is being named. The task is to present a system for toponymists to use when classifying
placenames according to their type (that is, according to the way in which they express the naming
intention).
4 A full statement of the ANPS research method may be found in Blair (2017).
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
5 A minor change, to reflect the order of “Expressions” in Table 2 above, is the renumbering of the
“Evaluative” and “Occurrent” categories.
6 The etymologies of the example toponyms are all recorded in the ANPS database and originate from
primary sources. Unfortunately, due to on-going additions to the database, it is not yet available for
public access.
References
Algeo, John. 1988. “The Australianness of Australian Placenames.” Names 36, no. 3/4: 173–185.
Amenyedzi, Dela. 2015. “The Onomastics of Principal Anlo-Town Names.” Master of Philosophy
dissertation, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana.
Awukuvi, Enoch Mensah. 2019. “Onomastic Peculiarities of Selected Christian Congregational Place
Names in Ghana.” Master of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana.
Baker, Ronald and Marvin Carmony. 1975. Indiana Place Names. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Barteaux, Jillian. 2016. “Urban Planning as Colonial Marketing Strategy for the Swan River
Settlement, Western Australia.” Australasian Historical Archaeology 34: 22–31.
Beconytė, Giedrė, Julius D. Budrevičius, Irena Ciparytė, and Andrius Balčiūnas. 2019. “Plants and
Animals in the Oikonyms of Lithuania.” Journal of Maps 15, no. 2: 726–732.
Blair, David. 2014 [2008]. A Standard Geographic Feature Catalogue for Toponymic Research.
ANPS Technical Paper No.1. South Turramurra, NSW: Placenames Australia.
http://www.anps.org.au/upload/ANPSTechPaper1.pdf.
Blair, David. 2017. The Australian National Placenames Survey: Principles and Practice. ANPS
Technical Paper No. 4. South Turramurra, NSW: Placenames Australia.
http://www.anps.org.au/upload/ANPSTechPaper4.pdf.
Blair, David and Jan Tent. 2020. Toponym Types: A Revised Typology of Place-naming. ANPS
Technical Paper No. 5. South Turramurra, NSW: Placenames Australia.
http://www.anps.org.au/upload/ANPSTechPaper5.pdf.
Bölling, Arne. 2013. “Writing Toponym Histories.” Placenames Australia, December, 3, 7, 9.
http://www.anps.org.au/upload/Dec_2013.pdf.
Bréelle, Danny. 2013. “Matthew Flinders’s Australian Toponymy and its British Connections.” Journal
of the Hakluyt Society November. Accessed February 15, 2021.
https://www.hakluyt.com/downloadable_files/Journal/Flinders_Toponymy.pdf.
Cavallaro, Francesco, Francesco Perono Cacciafoco and Zhi Xuan Tan. 2019. “Sequent Occupance and
Toponymy in Singapore: The Diachronic and Synchronic Development of Urban Place Names.”
Urban Science 3, no. 98. (DOI:10.3390/urbansci3030098).
Cooper, Julien Charles. 2020. Toponymy on the Periphery: Placenames of the Eastern Desert, Red
Sea, and South Sinaiin Egyptian Documents from the Early Dynastic until the End of the New
Kingdom. Leiden: Brill.
Gammeltoft, Peder. 2005. “In Search of the Motives Behind Naming: A Discussion of a Name-semantic
Model of Categorisation.” In Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Onomastic
Sciences, Uppsala 19–24 August 2002. Vol. 1, edited by Eva Brylla and Matts Wahlberg, 151–60.
Uppsala: Språk-och folkminnesinstutet.
Gasque, Thomas J. 2005. “A Number System for the Classification of U.S. Placenames.” Paper
presented at 22nd International Congress of Onomastic Sciences. Pisa, August 28–September 4.
Gläser, Rosemarie. 1998. “Australian Toponymy in the Light of Socio-onomastics.” In Proceedings of
the XIXth International Congress of Onomastic Sciences, Aberdeen, August 4–11, 1996: “Scope,
Perspectives and Methods of Onomastics.” Vol. 2, edited by W.F.H. Nicholaisen, 133–140.
Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen.
Hughes, Colleen. 2018. “Perceiving Arctic Landscapes Through the Sentiment Analysis of Inuit Place
Names.” MA dissertation, University of Calgary, Canada, AB.
http://hdl.handle.net/1880/106250.
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
David Blair and Jan Tent
ans-names.pitt.edu
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
46
Jenjekwa, Vincent. 2018. “A Toponymic Perspective on Zimbabwe’s Post-2000 Land Reform
Programme (Third Chimurenga).” PhD dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria.
Jenkins, Elwyn. 2018. “A Toponymic Typology Applied to South Africa.” Nomina Africana 32, no. 1:
23–35.
Ji Won S., Sejin Ahn and Hyo H. Sung. 2019. “The Naming Characteristics of Marine Geographical
Features around the Korean Peninsula by Western Countries During the Period of 1787–1910.”
Journal of the Korean Cartographic Association 8: 17–39.
Klugah, Mercy A. 2013. “Recounting History Through Linguistics: A Toponymic Analysis of Asogli
Migration Narratives.” African Journal of History and Culture 5, no. 8: 151–159.
Laaboudi, Daouia and Mohame Marouane. 2018. “Ait and Oulad Toponyms: Geographical
Distribution and Linguistic Implications.” Journal of Applied Language and Culture Studies 1:
107–131.
Lâm, Phùng Thị T. 2016. “(Re)naming Hanoi Streets after Historical People from Colonialism to
Postcolonialism: Creation and Recalling Collective Memories.” Onoma 51: 25–44.
Locke, John. 1690. An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding (1st ed.). London: Thomas Basset.
McArthur, Lewis A. 1928. Oregon Geographic Names. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society
Press.
McArthur, Lewis L. 1986. “Another Approach to Place-name Classification.” Names 34, no. 2:
238–241.
Nash, Joshua and Tin Chuk. 2012. “In Deep Water: Diving Site Names on Norfolk Island.” Journal of
Tourism and Cultural Change 10, no. 4: 301–320.
Newton, Janice. 2016. “Rural Autochthony? The Rejection of an Aboriginal Placename in Ballarat,
Victoria, Australia.” Cultural Studies Review 22, no. 2: 114–131.
OED Online. December 2020. Oxford University Press. Accessed February 23, 2021.
https://www.oed.com/.
Pearce, Thomas M. 1955. “Spanish Place Name Patterns in the Southwest.” Names 3, no. 4: 201–209.
(DOI: 10.1179/nam.1955.3.4.201).
Perono Cacciafoco, Francesco and Zheng Z.D. Shia. 2020. “Singapore’s Pre-colonial Place Names: A
Philological Reconstruction Developed Through the Analysis of Historical Maps.” Review of
Historical Geography and Toponomastics 15, no. 29/30: 79–120.
Rennick, Robert. 2005. “How to Study Placenames.” Names 53, no. 4: 291–308.
Smith, Grant. 1992. “Describing the Types of Placename Information.” Names 40, no. 4: 299–306.
Smith, Grant. 1996. “Amerindian Place Names: A Typology Based on Meaning and Form.” Onomastica
Canadiana 78: 53–64.
Steenkamp, Joan-Marié. 2015. “A Toponymical Study of Place Name Heritage in Mossel Bay (Western
Cape).” MA thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Stewart, George R. 1954. “A Classification of Place Names.” Names 2, no. 1: 1–13.
Stewart, George R. 1970. American Place-names: A Concise and Selective Dictionary for the
Continental United States of America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tent, Jan. 2015. “Approaches to Research in Toponymy.” Names 63, no. 2: 65–74.
Tent, Jan. 2017. “Indigenous Toponyms in the Antipodes: A Gazetteer-based Study.” Names 65, no. 4:
204–214.
Tent, Jan. 2021. The Namescape of the Australian Antarctic Territory. ANPS Occasional Paper No.
12. South Turramurra, NSW: Placenames Australia.
Tent, Jan and David Blair. 2009, 2014. Motivations for Naming: A Toponymic Typology. ANPS
Technical Paper, No. 2. Revised Edition. South Turramurra: Placenames Australia.
www.anps.org.au/upload/ANPSTechPaper2.pdf.
NAMES: A JOURNAL OF ONOMASTICS
A Revised Typology of Place-Naming
ans-names.pitt.edu
ISSN: 0027-7738 (print) 1756-2279 (web)
Vol. 69, Issue 4, Winter 2021
DOI 10.5195/names.2021.2260
Tent, Jan and David Blair. 2011. “Motivations for Naming: The Development of a Toponymic Typology
for Australian Placenames.” Names 59, no. 2: 67–89.
Tent, Jan and Helen Slatyer. 2009. “Naming Places on the ‘Southland’: European Place-naming
Practices from 1606 to 1803.” Australian Historical Studies 40, no. 1: 5–31.
Zelinsky, Wilbur. 2002. “Slouching Toward a Theory of Names: A Tentative Taxonomic Fix.” Names
50, no. 4: 243–262.
Zhenhua Zhu, Hongyan Zhang, Jianjun Zhao, Xiaoyi Guo, Zhengxiang Zhang, Yanling Ding and Tao
Xiong. 2018. “Using Toponyms to Analyze the Endangered Manchu Language in Northeast
China.” Sustainability 10, no. 2: 563. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/563.
Notes on Contributors
David Blair is a retired academic who currently serves as research toponymist with the Australian
National Placenames Survey. He is also an Honorary Associate at Macquarie University, Sydney. His
recent research has focused on theoretical aspects of toponymy, and on the names of Australia’s coastal
beaches.
Jan Tent is a retired academic and current Director of the Australian National Placenames Survey.
He is also an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the Australian National University, Canberra, and an
Honorary Research Fellow at Macquarie University, Sydney. Jan’s onomastic research has mainly
concentrated on early European place-naming practices in Australasia, as well as the toponymy of
Australia in general.
Correspondence to: Dr. Jan Tent, School of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, College of Arts
and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia. Email:
jan.tent@anu.edu.au or director@anps.org.au
