English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper considers the peculiarities of politonymy (political ergonymy) between the two revolutions of 1905–1907 and 1917. The author studies the onomastic patterns that were used to name political parties, movements, and parliamentary associations in the State Duma. In such situations, in order to distinguish political associations from other similar ones, it is important to emphasise different indicators which influence the existing names of associations. The article provides some nominations given by outsider nominators which causes certain peculiarities in politonyms. Methodologically, the article relies on relevant approaches used to study artificial onomastics and conclusions made by the author with reference to the Russian politonymy of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The author singles out the most vivid differences and loans from earlier politonymy to later politonymy. Additionally, the author provides a classification reflecting the division of parties into ideological groups in national historiography. The author demonstrates that each ideological group has its own dominant model. This may be explained both by objective and subjective reasons. The objective ones are explained by the fact that parties were similar ideologically, had similar structures and history, and were different from other ideological groups. The subjective reasons, i. e. the existence of dominant models, are connected with the functioning of politonyms as elements meant to promote sympathy for the party among a wide range of supporters with the same ideological views. The need to influence different target groups may be explained psychologically, which is reflected in many practical guidelines on advertising and propaganda described in works on commercial ergonymy.

Nomination Patterns for Political Parties and Organsations in the Late Russian Empire