Teknonymy and Multi-Nominality as Multiple Identity Markers for Vhavenḓa: An Autochthonic View

Abstract

This paper investigates teknonymy and multi-nominality as multiple identity markers for Vhavenḓa from an autochthonic view. Employing an ethnographic research design, and locating its argument within a six-pronged theoretical framework, the paper gleaned its data from two sources − interviews and document reviews. Its participants comprised 100 respondents. From this standpoint, the paper has mounted a discussion of the Vhavenḓa teknonymy. With reference to the latter, it has given pride of place to both teknonymy and multi-nominality, arguing that the two help engender multiple references, multiple addresses, and multiple identities.

Keywords

Teknonymy multi-nominality multiple identity markers Vhavenḓa multiple references multiple addresses multiple identities

Introduction

There are several scholars who have conducted research studies on onomastics with a particular focus on anthroponymy. The latter refers to the process of giving names – especially personal names − to human beings (Mandende, 2009); or as Agyekum (2006) aptly puts it, it is the study of personal names, and as such bears a semblance to anthropology, sociology and genealogy. Most of these scholars’ research studies deal with personal names of different social groupings, and with names of buildings, roads, streets, and of fauna and flora.

Examples of some of the studies mounted on personal names in particular, are: Alford’s (1988) study (personal naming practices and identity); Al-Shahi’s (1988) study (personal names and nicknames among the Riverain people of Northern Sudan); Arensen’s (1988) study (names pertaining to the cycles of the Murle); Anim’s (1993) study (naming as a cultural identity among the Akan, Ga and Ewe); Dickens’ (1985) study (Western influences on the isiZulu personal naming system); and Guma’s (2001) study (the cultural meaning of names among Southern African Basotho). Other examples include Koopman’s (1986, 1987, 1989) studies (the social and literary aspects of isiZulu personal names, isiZulu names and other modes of address, and the etiology of isiZulu personal names, respectively); Mabuza’s (2008) study (individual names in relation to personality); Mandende’s (2009) study (Tshivenḓa personal names); and Moyo’s (1996) study (personal names together with naming practices in Northern Malawi). Further examples are: Ndimande’s (1998) study (a semantic investigation of isiZulu surnames); Neethling’s (2005) study (naming among the amaXhosa of Southern Africa); Suzman’s (1994) study (names as pointers in relation to isiZulu personal naming practices); and Thipa’s (1987) study (Sesotho personal names). Moreover, in line with the leitmotif of this paper, there are scholars who have investigated personal names and the notion of naming practice against the backdrop of identity, situating the latter within its relevant conceptual permutations and theorising it largely from a poststructural perspective in varying degrees. Such scholars include Akinyemi (2005), Alford (1988), Anim (1993), Jayaraman (2005), Mandende (2009), Mashige (2011), and Willis (1994).

In most African societies, naming is one of the dominant forms of identity markers. Accordingly, in an African milieu, a phenomenon is better conceptualised, understood and identified through its name. In this context, it is not uncommon for an African to be given multiple personal names or to be accorded what this article calls multi-nominality, and to assume what Brendler (2012) refers to as various onymic manifestations during both their lifetime and their timeline. Thus, multi-nominality in communities to which it is applicable, results in those assuming it correspondingly assuming multiple identities. As a practice, multi-nominality can happen at different points in the individual’s temporal axis: it can occur at parturition, at baptism, and at work, or through nicknaming. Most importantly, the practice of multi-nominality for a single individual is indigenous − even though not necessarily exclusive − to amaZulu, Basotho and Vhavenḓa of South Africa (Dickens, 1985; Guma, 2001; Koopman, 1987; Mandende, 2009; Thipa, 1987). The same view is echoed by both Herskovits (1941) and Aceto (2002). To this end, Herskovits (1941: 190) puts this view crisply: ‘names are given at stated periods in an individual’s life’. Correspondingly, Fortes (1955) emphatically asserts that this phenomenon is endemic among all the tribes and peoples of Africa.

In this instance, multiple naming tends to be woven into the autochthonous familial folkways of these communities. Koopman (1987), Mandende (2009) and Molefe (1999) aver that this familial phenomenon of multi-nominality marks the different stages in one’s ontogenesis. For example, Mandende (2009) points out that this onymic process progressively plays itself out when a child is born; gets into the adolescent stage; goes to school (Western school); gets employed; and graduates from a traditional school. The latter is referred to as muḽa/murundu) for Vhavenḓa boys, and vhukomba/vhusha for Vhavenḓa girls. In addition, Mandende (2009) states that Vhavenḓa boys and girls even get their new names to mark their graduation from domba, which is attended by young males and young females who have been to muḽa/murundu and vhukomba/vhusha. In this context, domba is an initiation ceremony that symbolises fertility, with a snake dance as its main feature.

Against the background sketched above, this paper attempts to explore the role played by both teknonymy and multi-nominality in the Vhavenḓa’s familial life system. As mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, there are studies that have investigated onomastics (including socio-onomastics). However, very few such studies have examined teknonymy and multi-nominality simultaneously. Scholars such as Anim (1993), Arensen (1988), Guerini (2005), Jayaraman (2005), Koopman (1987), Kubayi (2013), Mandende (2009) and Thipa (1983) are among those that have researched teknonymy. Even among the scholars who have attempted to study teknonymy, there are those who have not done justice to this area as they fail to factor in, appropriately, the requisite African value systems (such as acknowledging/accepting parenthood and promoting procreation in the case of the Vhavenḓa) attendant to this practice.

Teknonymy and multi-nominality as indexes of multiple identities: an overview

Teknonymy is a sub-section of anthroponymy. It covers the naming of parents and grandparents after the names of their children and grandchildren, such as mother of so-and-so (child’s name), father of so-and-so (child’s name), grandmother of so-and-so (grandchild’s name), and grandfather of so-and-so (grandchild’s name) (Alford, 1988; also see Anim, 1993; Koopman, 1986; Sillander, 2010). This practice is autochthonous among certain African societies, including some of the Black communities in South Africa who employ it for referencing and addressing certain individuals. The usage of employing names to reference and address individuals resonates with Aceto’s (2002: 577) panoptic view that ‘speakers of any given language often have a number of names for referencing and addressing one another’. While this practice has a pan-African aura to it, Sillander (2010) elevates it to a multisocietal level by contending that it occurs − matrilineally, patrilineally and bilaterally − in all types of societies. In the South African context, Mandende (2009) argues persuasively about the endemic nature of teknonymy among the Vhavenḓa. Concomitantly, he opines that among the Vhavenḓa, both parents are referenced and addressed as mother of so-and-so (child’s name) or father of so-and-so (child’s name). He also maintains that there is no strict rule that stipulates that if the first-born is a girl, her name will be used to address her mother only, and that the father will be addressed by the name of the boy if the boy is a second-born child.

Similarly, teknonymy, is also practised among the amaZulu. To this effect, Koopman (1986: 43) reports that: ‘Zulus too use the eldest child’s name but may use the second child’s name if the eldest one is a girl and the second one a boy’. Frequently, if the eldest child is a girl and the second one is a boy, the husband will address his wife as Mamaka (mother of) (daughter’s name), while his wife will address him as Babaka (father of) (son’s name) (see Koopman, 1986, 1987, 1989). Likewise, Thipa (1987: 116) argues that the practice of teknonymy is indigenous among the Basotho who use children’s and grandchildren’s names to reference and address parents and grandparents, respectively, in their communities. This practice is effected, Thipa (1987) further contends, through prefixing Mma- (mother of) and Ra- or Ntata- (father of) to a child’s name. By contrast, Mandende (2009) states that it is quite surprising to note that even though teknonymy is autochthonous among most Southern African Black communities, Thipa (1987), however, reports that this practice is less prevalent among the amaXhosa because they give a newly married woman a new name immediately after marriage. The same sentiment is echoed by Simelane-Kalumba (2014) who points out that among the amaXhosa a newly married woman is customarily given a bridal name (igama lomzi) as the usage of bridal personal names is completely avoided.

In a different but related scenario, Sillander (2010) states that teknonymy is also autochthonous among the Bentian of Indonesian Borneo. To this end, he points out that the Bentian have personal and grandparental teknonyms they receive after birth and after obtaining children and grandchildren respectively, or after acquiring an adult and old age status. He further illustrates that the archetypal Bentian teknonyms assume the following pattern: Nen X (Mother of X), Ma X (Father of X), Tak X (Grandmother of X) and Kakah X (Grandfather of X). If this is the case, this then suggests that among the Bentian, the practice of teknonymy operates as multiple teknonyms in which one individual variously assumes multi-nominality, multiple references and multiple addresses, a process giving rise to multiple identities. The latter is in accord with a postmodern theorisation of identity in its plurality and bricolage. Postmodern identity is both complex and hybrid: it has fluid, contingent, shifting, and multiple configurations into which are built multiple subjectivities and multiple self-presentations (Chaka, n.d.; also see Marwick, 2013; Mashige, 2011; Sengani, 2015). When teknonymy takes place among African communities to which this practice is autochthonous, it adds to the other names that individuals already possess. In this way, it redounds to individuals’ multi-nominality, multiple references and multiple addresses, thereby engendering multiple identities and multiple subjectivities that such individuals assume in the process.

Theoretical framework: instrumentalism, logocentrism, indexicality, language games and identity

The theoretical framework through which Vhavenḓa teknonymy is conceptualised entails the following constructs: instrumentalism; logocentrism; indexicality; language games; and identity. Instrumentalism posits that language, along with words, serves certain uses for speakers (e.g. naming, communicating, solving problems, etc.). It is a functional view that words are best appropriated to serve specific purposes. It also rejects classical dualist Saussurean notions of language as an immutable arbitrary system over which individuals have no control, and of a segregational linguistics that abstracts the signifier from the signified, or that subscribes to ‘a bi-planar linguistic sign’ (Pablé, 2013: 3). In addition, instrumentalism is antithetical to a ‘elementational model of communication’ (Pablé, 2013: 4, citing Harris, 1998: 32) in respect of which a speaker and a hearer unproblematically engage in a transparent transference of a message (also see Pablé, 2014). In this context, the paper contends that Vhavenḓa teknonyms embody instrumentalism in that they serve a given functional value. That is, Vhavenḓa teknonyms tend to perform onymic functions and tend to do things in the same way as words do things qua Austin (Austin, 1962). In this case, they are not self-containing arbitrary bi-planar labels in the Saussurean sense in which a name is one thing, and the named (a name bearer) is another. Rather, Vhavenḓa teknonyms are semantically embodied by the persons to whom they are given. The following teknonymic instances, derived from the name, Nthumeni (Send me, or I am your messenger), serve to illustrate this instrumentalist use: Khotsi a Nthumeni (Father of Nthumeni); Mme a Nthumeni (Mother of Nthumeni); and Makhulu wa Nthumeni (Grandfather/mother of Nthumeni).

On this score, logocentrism postulates that words embody the meanings of things, and that language provides a framework for reality (Pablé, 2013, 2014). Even though Whorfianism articulates the same view in relation to language and reality (see Whorf 1956), the paper rejects extreme Whorfianism and, instead, finds Pablo’s (2013, 2014) postulation more pertinent to it in this instance. So, the paper posits that more often than not, Vhavenḓa teknonyms are conduits of the meanings of the entities or individuals to which they refer. An example here is when the name, Tshifhiwa (Gift), is used teknonymically as in Khotsi a Tshifhiwa (Father of Tshifhiwa); Mme a Tshifhiwa (Mother of Tshifhiwa); and Makhulu wa Tshifhiwa (Grandfather/mother of Tshifhiwa). For its part, indexicality is about indexes or signs having existential relations with personal, social, temporal and spatial things to which they refer. Mainly, it has to do with personal, social, temporal and spatial deixis, all of which serve deictic and referential functions in language (Agyekum, 2006; Duranti, 1997; Silverstein, 1976; cf. Brendler, 2012). In the same vein, Vhavenḓa teknonyms serve deictic and referential functions at personal, social, temporal and spatial planes. One example is the name Gumani (Stop!), when it is used teknonymically as in the following instances: Khotsi a Gumani (Father of Gumani); Mme a Gumani (Mother of Gumani); and Makhulu wa Gumani (Grandfather/mother of Gumani).

Allied to instrumentalism, logocentrism and indexicality in theorising Vhavenḓa teknonymy is language games. The latter is a philosophical approach to ordinary language propounded by Wittgenstein (1968) that theorises language as games – gaming − constituted by rules, and characterised by tactical moves or turns (cf. Jameson 1984). Accordingly, within any language – and thereby any discourse − there are different language games each with its own rules, moves and turns (Chaka, 2006; Lyotard, 1984; Wittgenstein, 1968). In this context, Wittgenstein (1968) conceives of language as comprising utterances bearing varying meanings that can be understood within their contexts of use. In addition, drawing on the theory of speech acts, Wittgenstein (1968) contends that words perform various language or communication activities such as naming, referring, saying, stating, describing, asserting, reporting, commanding, questioning, speculating, entertaining, etc. (cf. Chaka, 2006). Thus, Wittgenstein’s (1968) language games notion embodies elements of the functional value of language that are espoused by instrumentalism. In keeping with this Wittgensteinian language theorising, this paper avers that in certain instances, Vhavenḓa teknonyms entail the act of language gaming in which teknonyms tend to be regulated and motivated by cultural rules and tactics. One instance of such culturally embedded rules and tactics is related to, as pointed out by Mandende (2009), teknonyms conferred to individuals so as to acknowledge/accept their parenthood, promote their procreation, or bestow on them a sense of responsibility. Moreover, this paper maintains that in certain situations, Vhavenḓa teknonyms play the role of performative speech acts and bear varying contextual meanings in the Wittgensteinian sense. One example illustrating this Wittgensteinian conception of language gaming in which a word performs a functional value is the teknonymic use of the name, Takalani (Be happy) or Livhuwani (Be thankful), in the following instances: Khotsi a Takalani/Livhuwani (Father of Takalani/Livhuwani); Mme a Takalani/Livhuwani (Mother of Takalani/Livhuwani); and Makhulu wa Takalani/Livhuwani (Grandfather/mother of Takalani/Livhuwani).

In this instance, identity is theorised in this framework from a non-essentialist perspective in the same way as scholars such as Bock and Mheta (2014), Marwick (2013), Mashige (2011), Turkle (1995, 1997), Weedon (1987) and Woodward (1997) do. According to this perspective, identity is complex, dynamic and shifting; it also transgresses personal, cultural, social and national borders (see Bock and Mheta, 2014; Grossberg, 1996; Hall, 1994; Said, 1978; Weedon, 1987). Most importantly, it has many permutations, hence it is conceptualised in its plural form. Likewise, identity with reference to Vhavenḓa teknonyms displays non-essentialist configurations, especially when it comes to those assigned certain teknonyms. In this case, those assigned specific Vhavenḓa teknonyms tend to engage in and perform personal identity acts – a la Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) − while concurrently assuming multiple personal identities spawned by other appellations or titles bestowed on them in the contexts in which they find themselves.

Lastly, the current framework has elements of prosopography. The latter is a concept borrowed from Verboven, Carlier and Dumolyn’s (2007) work. It literally means describing material or external individual characteristics. It is a historical research approach employed for organising information (especially data) in a manner that enables it to acquire additional dimension by highlighting links and patterns influencing historical processes. Its interest is mainly in the average, the general and the commonness in the life histories of individuals. In this case, onomatics can enhance prosopography: first, through establishing whether a given name (e.g. Riḓomushumela (We will work for Him, God/We will work for him/her, our king/queen)) is typical of a specific social class or not; and second, through enabling one to know when and how personal names mutate and evolve in a given temporal perspective. Likewise, prosopography can enrich onomastics. For example, prosopography can help establish whether a particular name (e.g. Riḓomuthetshelesa (We will listen to Him, God/We will listen to him/her, our king/queen)) is typical of a specific social or occupational class or not. In addition, it can show how names and name forms are used to refer to children and adults, and to men and women (Verboven et al., 2007), thereby portraying prosopopoeia (depicting an abstract quality or idea through a person or a creature). The names, Takalani and Livhuwani, as mentioned earlier on, are a case in point, as they depict abstract qualities.

Research methodology

This paper employed qualitative research methodology, and utilised an ethnographic research design. The latter informed its data collection procedures: interviews and document reviews. In this context, qualitative research foregrounds individuals’ opinions, experiences and feelings and a description of social phenomena in naturalistic settings (Babbie, 2011; Biggerstaff, n.d.; Hancock, 1998; Miles and Huberman, 1994). It then strives for an in-depth and a nuanced understanding of such human and social variables, and of the context in which they are embedded. Correspondingly, ethnography – literally meaning ‘portrait of a people’ − is an approach involving a rich description of cultures and peoples. Some of its cardinal data collection techniques are interviews and participant observation (Hancock, 1998: 4−5).

Participants and sampling techniques

In the current paper, two methods were used to collect data: two sets of unstructured interviews (unstructured face-to-face focus group interviews and telephonic interviews) and document reviews. Both focus group and telephonic interviews concentrated mainly on the practice of teknonymy as it applies to the Vhavenḓa, and were conducted at different times over a period of two months in 2009. There were 50 Vhavenḓa participants − mostly informants who were identified through convenience sampling − who participated in the first round of focus group and telephonic interviews. Of these, 40 participants (20 males and 20 females whose age group ranged from 35 to 77 years) took part in face-to-face focus group interviews, and 10 participants (five males and five females whose age group ranged from 50 to 70 years) took part in telephonic interviews. Of these 50, 25 participants (12 males and 13 females) were from the Limpopo province, while the remaining 25 participants (13 males and 12 females) were from the Gauteng province. Thereafter, a snowball procedure was employed in which each participant was requested to recruit one more relevant same-gender and same-age informant from the same province in which they were resident, so as to maintain a gender and age balance of the participants. In all, 100 participants volunteered to take part in the study, with the 50 recruited informants being interviewed in two sets of interviews in keeping with the same format that was used in the first round of interviews. The reason for telephonic interviews was that some participants were located in two different provinces of South Africa.

The data sourced from interviews constituted the primary data. By contrast, the secondary data were sourced from Tshivenḓa literary works through document reviews – also known as document analysis (see Verboven et al., 2007). The main reason for collecting this secondary data was to assess whether or not the authors of these Tshivenḓa prose fiction books reflected teknonymy in these works of literature. The snowball sampling technique that sought to source further relevant informants as employed in the study, and the strategy of collecting the secondary data from several Tshivenḓa prose books reflect elements of prosopography. This is more so since the entire process of data collection was intended to establish similar links and patterns in the teknonymy practice as it applies to participants. In particular, the process of collecting the secondary data was an attempt to establish similar teknonymic links and patterns for the Tshivenḓa literary works in question. In this regard, Table 1 summarises, microscopically, instances of teknonymy applicable to South Africa’s nine ethnic tribes. In this context, the data from the 100 participants and from Tshivenḓa literary works are used to explore teknonymy and multi-nominality as they relate to Vhavenḓa.

Table 1.

A cross-section of teknonymy applicable to South Africa’s nine ethnic tribes.

Teknonymy applicable to South Africa’s nine ethnic tribes
Ethnic groups	Child’s name	Father’s teknonym	Mother’s teknonym	Grandfather’s teknonym	Grandmother’s teknonym
Bapedi	Kgabo	Tatago Kgabo	Mmago Kgabo	Koko a Kgabo	Rakgolo a Kgabo
Basotho	Tumelo	Ntate a Tumelo/Ntata Tumelo	Mme a Tumelo/MmaTumelo	Nkgono a Tumelo	Ntate Moholo a Tumelo
Batswana	Modise	Ntate a Modise/Rraagwe Modise/Rraa Modise	Mme a Modise/Mmaagwe Lethabo/Mmaa Modise	Koko a Modise/Kokoagwe Modise/Kokoa Modise	Ntate/Rremogolo a Modise/Rremogolo a Modise
AmaNdebele	Thembeni	SoThembeni	NoThembeni	Gogo kaThembeni	Bamkhulu kaThembeni
AmaSwati	Mantfombi	Baba waMantfombi/Uyise waMantfombi	Mama waMantfombi/NaBoMantfombi	Gogo waMantfombi	Mkhulu waMantfombi
Vatsonga	Hlamalani	Papa (wa) Hlamalani	Mhana (wa) Hlamalani	Kokwa (ni) wa Hlamalani	Kokwa (ni) wa Hlamalani
Vhavenḓa	Thendo	Khotsi a Thendo	Mme a Thendo	Makhulu wa Thendo	Makhulu wa Thendo
AmaXhosa	Asanda	uTata kaAsanda	uMama kaAsanda
AmaZulu	Sthembiso	Uyise kaSthembiso(uBaba kaSthembiso)	uNinaka Sthembiso(uMamaka Sthembiso)	uGogo kaSthembiso	uBabamkhulu kaSthembiso

Vhavenḓa teknonymy and multi-nominality as signifiers of multiple identities

The practice of teknonymy as used among the Vhavenḓa needs be understood against the backdrop of teknonymy as it applies to other ethnic groups in South Africa as reflected in Table 1. Thus, this teknonymy table provides a primer to discuss, first, the Vhavenḓa teknonymy and, later on, the notion of multi-nominality related to it. This is done so as to situate the Vhavenḓa teknonymy in relation to other instances of this practice as it pertains to other ethnic groups in South Africa. It is also done because the current paper believes the Vhavenḓa teknonymy does not prevail in isolation: it is part of the overarching tribal teknonymy practice in South Africa. From this table, it becomes obvious that, for example, among the amaXhosa, teknonymy seems to be less commonly used, and that where it happens to occur, it tends to apply only to both the father and the mother, and not to grandfathers and grandmothers. This observation dovetails with Thipa’s (1987) contention made earlier on that teknonymy is less prevalent among the amaXhosa as it has a selective application within a family structure (see Simelane-Kalumba, 2014). In fact, in certain instances, amaXhosa married women are referenced and addressed through their paternal clan names which are prefixed with Ma- (mother of) as in MaRadebe, MaMqwathi, MaMgebe, etc. At times, these paternal clan names almost become a dominant form of reference and address for married women. Thus, it can be argued that among the amaXhosa, teknonymy as a referential and address usage, is less autochthonous.

Correspondingly, Mandende (2009) contends that a similar folkway is endemic among amaZulu married women, who can be referenced and addressed through paternal clan names such as MaNtuli, MaMkhize, MaKhumalo, MaMlambo and MaNdlovu. In a related but different scenario, Mandende (2009) − (citing Mathivha 1961) − points out that Vhavenḓa married women can be referenced and addressed using their maiden names. In that situation, he argues, such maiden names are prefixed with Ṅwa- of which examples are Ṅwakhakhu, Ṅwakhadi, Ṅwasundani and Ṅwafunyufunyu. The same practice of maiden name calling – in which names are prefixed with N’wa − is also prevalent among Vatsonga women as exemplified by: N’waChauke (daughter of Chauke); N’waNkuna (daughter of Nkuna); N’waMaluleke (daughter of Maluleke); and N’waMukhari (daughter of Mukhari). This seems to contrast markedly with the reference and address forms applicable to amaZulu and amaXhosa married women. This referential and address usage applicable to amaXhosa, amaZulu and Vhavenḓa married women as characterised in the preceding paragraphs, nevertheless, stands in stark contrast to a teknonymy practice prevalent among tribes such as the Basotho whose married women are mainly referenced and addressed through the clan names of their newly acquired marital families. For example, if a married woman’s newly acquired marital family’s clan name is Motaung or Mokoena, she will, accordingly, be referenced and addressed as MaMotaung or MaMokoena. This may persist until the woman becomes a grandmother, in which case she will be referenced and addressed as Nkgono MaMotaung (grandmother MaMotaung) or Nkgono MaMokoena (grandmother MaMokoena).

A salient feature of Table 1 is that teknonymy is an inter-generational usage among the other eight ethnic tribes (excluding the amaXhosa). That is, the name starts with a child as his or her cardinal form of reference and address as the third generation member of the family. Then, the same name is bestowed on the child’s father and mother, and becomes a dominant form of reference and address to his or her parents as the second generation members of the family. Finally, the self-same name is bestowed on the child’s grandfather and grandmother, for whom it becomes a principal form of reference and address as the first generation members of the family. This, therefore, implies that teknonymy is more autochthonously prevalent among these eight ethnic tribes. Even more so, and especially taking cognisance of Table 1, this suggests that teknonymy serves instrumental, logocentrist and indexical functions when it is used for address and referential purposes in most of these tribes. Moreover, when teknonymy is invoked for these triple functions, it entails, in certain cases, language gaming – in the Wittgensteinian sense – or name gaming. The latter plays itself out through a repetitive onymic practice in which one and the same name (e.g. Thembeni, Kgabo, Thendo and Hlamalani as depicted in Table 1) is used to reference and address at least five different family members across an inter-generational familial spectrum. Furthermore, when teknonymy is invoked as in the case of names such as Thembeni, Sthembiso, Kgabo, Tumelo, Modise, Thendo and Hlamalani, the praxis of prosopopoeia is enacted through given teknonym bearers.

On this basis, the paper contends that the praxis of repetitive inter-generational familial teknonymy – that embodies name gaming as postulated above – engenders multiple references and multiple addresses, especially as it applies to Vhavenḓa. This is occasioned by invoking a single and self-same teknonym that is used to reference and address different individuals within an inter-generational familial continuum at different axial points. Not only does this particular folkway praxis beget multiple references and multiple addresses, but it also becomes a signifier of multi-nominality to the teknonym bearers concerned. That is, when teknonymy takes place among given Vhavenḓa individuals, it does so against a backdrop of other existing names that an individual bears and which are bestowed on him or her at different stages in his or her temporal axis. One case in point is the teknonymy practice that plays itself out in literary works as evidenced by the following Tshivenḓa male teknonyms:

(1) Vho-Takalani: Kani-ha o no vha afhio khotsi a Tsumbedzo? (Ṋefefe 2005: 1).

(Mrs Takalani: What is wrong with you Tsumbedzo’s father?)

(2) Vho-Takalani: Nda vho vuwa khofheni nga ḽifhio ndi tshi khou ḓi tou amba na vhone khotsi a Tsumbedzo (Ṋefefe 2005: 2).

(Mrs Takalani: Why are you accusing me of talking to you while asleep whereas I am just talking to you Tsumbedzo’s father).

(3) Vha si tsha amba khotsi a Thivhi uri vho no vha ṱhohoyatshikolo? Ndi vho tou zwi pfa ndi tshi vhidzelelwa nga vhana vha tshikolo ndi nḓilani (Ṋephawe 2004: 12).

(Why did you not tell me tell me that you Thivhi’s father are now a principal? I overheard the news from your learners from the street.)

Another case in point is teknonyms as they apply to Vhavenḓa women (e.g. mothers/grandmothers) and Vhavenḓa men (e.g. fathers/grandfathers). For example, Vhavenḓa women can be referenced and addressed by dint of teknonyms, maiden names and marriage names (names bestowed on them during u laya muselwa or a marriage induction ceremonial course by an elderly woman such as makhadzi (a paternal aunt)). These names are crucial add-ons to their maiden family personal names and to their birth names and school/Christian names. A radical point of departure here is the value that such names assume as new and dominant loci of reference and address that tend to supplant other existing names. Similarly, Vhavenḓa men can be referenced and addressed by means of teknonyms, personal names, and school/Christian names in addition to ceremonial names they acquire in the course of their existence within an inter-generational familial hierarchy (see Mandende 2009). This view resonates with the sentiments expressed by the Vhavenḓa participants used in this paper. This, then, tends to emphasise the autochthonous nature of teknonymy as a folkway usage applicable to the Vhavenḓa.

Furthermore, the notion of multiple references, multiple addresses and multi-nominality as posited above leads to a related corollary: multiple identities. When a single individual (e.g. a Muvenḓa woman or a Muvenḓa man) has a common and self-same familial inter-generational teknonym as her/his dominant locus of reference and address, in addition to her/his personal name, birth name, school/Christian name (and marriage name, in the case of a woman), she/he assumes not only multiple onymic identities, but multiple personal identities and multiple subjectivities as well. In other words, in this case, both teknonymy and multiple naming serve as signifiers of multiple identities for such an individual. One upshot of this onymic and personal metamorphosis is that a Muvenḓa woman’s or a Muvenḓa man’s familial status morphs into multiple personal statuses and multiple self-presentations on a calibrated temporal axis within her/his familial milieu. So, such multiple names together with teknonyms become cardinal axial points on which a woman’s or a man’s acquired multiple existences revolve. In a different context, Puskás (2009) points out how the practice of multiple naming is firmly entrenched among Hungarians, and how assuming multiple names is a convenient usage for Hungarians in both Sweden and Slovakia. In the same vein, Sillander (2010) points out how teknonymy manifests itself in multiple teknonyms among the Bentian of Indonesian Borneo.

Of great significance about Vhavenḓa teknonyms (and names) is that they perform instrumental, logocentrist and indexical functions when used for address and referential purposes as highlighted earlier on. One instance of instrumental function served by Vhavenḓa teknonyms is to express personal and social emotions across an inter-generational and dual gender familial continuum, as illustrated by the name, Nkhangweleni (Forgive me), when used teknonymically: Khotsi a Nkhangweleni (Father of Nkhangweleni); Mme a Nkhangweleni (Mother of Nkhangweleni); and Makhulu wa Nkhangweleni (Grandfather/mother of Nkhangweleni). These teknonymic variations, when applied to those being referenced and addressed by them, can be expressed at both personal and social emotional levels so as to beseech forgiveness either from one person, from the whole family, or from the tribe/society at large. Since the same teknonym mutates with an individual’s changing status (e.g. graduating from a Father of Nkhangweleni/Mother of Nkhangweleni to a Grandfather/mother of Nkhangweleni), this praxis underlines the mutational and shifting nature of identities constructed through teknonyms. An integral part of these mutational and shifting identities signified by teknonyms, is that, the latter are constructed as phrasal names, and not as single word names. This is one of the distinctive features of teknonymy as discussed here.

An instance in which a teknonym in Tshivenḓa serves a logocentrist function, is when a person whose child’s name/grandchild’s name is Tshiwanḓalani (the one born when there is large-scale famine) is concomitantly given the teknonym, Khotsi a Tshiwanḓalani (Father of Tshiwanḓalani); Mme a Tshiwanḓalani (Mother of Tshiwanḓalani); or Makhulu wa Tshiwanḓalani (Grandfather/mother of Tshiwanḓalani) (cf. Mandende, 2009). A logocentrist value attached to this teknonym is that it intrinsically embodies the folkway meanings of things and the folkway framework of the reality as perceived by a given Vhavenḓa family at a particular historical juncture. To this effect, an indexical function of a teknonym such as Mme a Tshiwanḓalani lies in its potential to temporally and spatially reference a given Mme a Tshiwanḓalani and distinguish her from the other individuals bearing the same teknonym or different teknonyms both within her own matrimonial family and in other unrelated families. The same applies to the teknonym, Khotsi a Tshiwanḓalani, and its bearer within his own family and in other unrelated families. Lastly, Vhavenḓa teknonyms such as Khotsi a Mashudu/Mme a Mashudu, Khotsi a Thendo/Mme a Thendo, and Khotsi a Tshiwanḓalani/Mme a Tshiwanḓalani tend to serve the praxis of prosopopoeia as embodied by concerned teknonym bearers.

Limitations and recommendations

The data used in this study are very limited in scope and depth. In addition, the sample of the participants who took part in the study is too small. As such, the findings of this study need to be treated with a modicum of caution and tentativeness. Besides, researching aspects related to teknonymy, naming and identity is a highly subjective undertaking that entails personal prejudices and biases that can cloud one’s objective treatment of these issues. Moreover, identity in particular, is a problematic and elusive construct that can hardly be confined to any all-encompassing and universal definition. Additionally, pinning identity construction to teknonymy − and to the usage of naming in general − on the basis of the responses elicited from participants and on the basis of the information sourced from written books, is a pedestrian and shallow representation of this concept. For that reason, one should guard against deploying subjective data to unfairly pigeonhole a given ethnic group (e.g. Vhavenḓa) or given members of an ethnic group. Thus, in this respect, more research – especially broad-based cross-sectional studies involving larger samples − is required to uncover and to come to grips with how teknonymy and naming are implicated in identity (re)construction. Notwithstanding the limitations pinpointed here, this paper serves as one of the starting points from which to interrogate teknonymy, multi-nominality and multiple identities as they relate to Vhavenḓa. And in interrogating these three constructs, the paper attempted to triangulate its participants (through snowballing) and its data (through interviews and document reviews).

Concluding remarks

This paper has explored teknonymy and multi-nominality as multiple identity markers for Vhavenḓa from an autochthonic view. The latter entails investigating practices indigenously interwoven within folkway usages and nuances of a given people or peoples. Locating its argument within a six-pronged theoretical framework and employing triangulated data gleaned from two data sources (e.g. interviews and document reviews), the paper has provided a panoptic view of teknonymy sourced from participants’ responses as it applies to Vhavenḓa. Most importantly, the paper has mounted a discussion of the Vhavenḓa teknonymy. With reference to the latter, it has given pride of place to both teknonymy and multi-nominality in relation to how they help engender multiple identities.

Where necessary, the paper has compared the Vhavenḓa teknonymy with the teknonymy practices applicable to other ethnic groups in South Africa. Based on this, it has made several observations. For example, the paper has identified teknonymy as a dominant form of reference and address for the Vhavenḓa. By contrast, it has highlighted that teknonymy is less autochthonous among the amaXhosa as a dominant referential and address usage. In addition, the paper has argued that teknonymy is an inter-generational practice among the Vhavenḓa, and that the praxis of repetitive inter-generational familial teknonymy spawns multiple references and multiple addresses. This is more so when a single and self-same teknonym is employed to reference and address different individuals within an inter-generational familial continuum at different axial points. Most significantly, the paper has postulated that Vhavenḓa can be referenced and addressed by dint of teknonyms as dominant loci of reference and address, in addition to their personal names, birth names, and school/Christian names (and maiden and marriage names, in the case of women).

When a single individual (e.g. a Muvenḓa woman or a Muvenḓa man) has a common and self-same inter-generational familial teknonym as her/his new and dominant locus of reference and address, in addition to her/his personal name, birth name and school/Christian name (and maiden and marriage names, in the case of women), she/he assumes not only multiple onymic identities, but multiple personal identities and multiple subjectivities as well. So, in this instance, both teknonymy and multiple naming serve as signifiers of multiple identities for such an individual. One corollary of this onymic and personal metamorphosis is that a woman’s/man’s familial status morphs into multiple personal statuses and multiple self-presentations on a calibrated temporal axis within her/his family setup. So, such multiple names together with teknonyms become cardinal axial points on which an individual’s newly acquired multiple existences revolve.

Moreover, the paper has posited that the notion of multiple references, multiple addresses and multi-nominality as it pertains to Vhavenḓa engenders not only multiple identities and multiple onymic identities, but also multiple personal identities and multiple subjectivities. Subsequently, this onymic and personal metamorphosis results in an individual’s familial status morphing into multiple personal statuses and multiple self-presentations on a mensurated temporal axis within her/his familial ambience. Furthermore, the paper has contended that Vhavenḓa teknonyms and names tend to perform instrumental, logocentrist and indexical functions when used for address and referential purposes. Finally, the paper has posited that Vhavenḓa teknonyms tend to serve the praxis of prosopopoeia as mediated by concerned teknonym bearers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Itani P Mandende is a senior lecturer in theDepartment of Applied Languages at TUT. His research interests are in linguistics, sociolinguistics, onomastics, and language policy and planning.

Chaka Chaka is a senior lecturer in the Department of Applied Languages at TUT. His research interests are in discourse and genre analysis, second language teaching and learning, second language writing, and mobile learning.

Moshidi M Makgato is a lecturer in the Department of Applied Languages at TUT. Her research interests include Setswana literature, sociolinguistics, and language policy and planning.

References

Aceto

(2002) Ethnic personal names and multiple identities in Anglophone Caribbean speech communities in Latin America. Language in Society 31(4): 577–608.

Agyekum

(2006) The sociolinguistic of Akan personal names. Nordic Journal of African Studies 15(2): 206–235.

Akinyemi

(2005) Integrating culture and second language teaching through Yorùbá personal names. The Modern Language Journal 89(1): 115–126.

Alford

(1988) Naming and Identity: A Cross-Cultural Study of Personal Naming Practices. New Haven: HRAF Press.

Al-Shahi

(1988) Some personal names and nicknames among the Riverain people of northern Sudan. JASO: Journal of Anthropological Society of Oxford XIX(1): 131–139.

Anim

(1993) Names as a Factor in Cultural Identity among the Akan, Ga and Ewe of Ghana. Pretoria: Centre for Development Analysis.

Arensen

(1988) Names in the cycles of the Murle. JASO: Journal of Anthropological Society of Oxford XIX(1): 125–130.

Austin

(1962) How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.

Babbie

(2011) The Basics of Social Research (5th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

10.

Biggerstaff

(n.d.) Qualitative research methods in psychology. Available at: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/36452/InTech-Qualitative_research_methods_in_psychology.pdf (accessed 06 April 2013).

11.

Bock

Mheta

(eds) (2014) Language, Society and Communication: An Introduction. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

12.

Brendler

(2012) Identity of name(s) as a crucial problem in name studies, or: Towards the recognition of onymic identity as a principal onomastic concept. Names and Identities, Oslo Studies in Language 4(2): 29–44.

13.

Chaka

(2006) Critical linguistics and postmodernism: An assessment with reference to selected English texts. PhD thesis, University of the Free State, South Africa.

14.

Chaka

(n.d.) Gender, identity and language use in web discussion forums and txt messages (Unpublished manuscript).

15.

Dickens

(1985) Western influences on the Zulu system of personal naming. MA dissertation, Rhodes University, South Africa.

16.

Duranti

(1997) Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Fortes

(1955) Names among the Tallensi of the Gold Coast. Afrikanistische Studien 26: 337−349.

18.

Grossberg

(1996) Identity and cultural studies – Is that all there is? In: Hall

Du Gay

(eds) Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage Publications, pp. 87–107.

19.

Guerini

(2005) Akan traditional personal name system in Ghana: A semantic and functional perspective. Nomina Africana 19(2): 5–38.

20.

Guma

(2001) The cultural meaning of names among Basotho of southern Africa: A historical and linguistic analysis. Nordic Journal of African Studies 10(3): 265–279.

21.

Hall

(1994) Cultural identity and diaspora. In: Williams

Chrisman

(eds) Colonial Discourse and Postcolonial Theory: A Reader. New York: Columbia, UP, pp. 392–403.

22.

Hancock

(1998) Trent Focus for Research and Development in Primary Health Care: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Nottingham: Trent Focus.

23.

Harris

(1998) Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

24.

Herskovits

(1941) The Myth of the Negro Past. New York: Harper & Brothers.

25.

Jameson

(1984) Foreword. In: Lyotard

J-F

. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Trans. Bennington

Massumi

). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. vii-xxiii.

26.

Jayaraman

(2005) Personal identity in a globalized world: Cultural roots of Hindu personal names and surnames. The Journal of Popular Culture 38(3): 476−490.

27.

Koopman

(1986) The social and literary aspects of Zulu personal names. MA Dissertation, University of Natal, South Africa.

28.

Koopman

(1987) Zulu names and other modes of address. Nomina Africana 1(1): 136−164.

29.

Koopman

(1989) The etiology of Zulu personal names. Nomina Africana 3(2): 3−48.

30.

Kubayi

(2013) Address forms in Xitsonga: A socio-pragmatic perspective. PhD thesis, University of South Africa, South Africa.

31.

Le Page

Tabouret-Keller

(1985) Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Lyotard

J-F

(1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Trans. Bennington

Massumi

). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

33.

Mabuza

(2008) Individual names and personality: A consideration of some beliefs. Onomàstica doi:10.2436/15.8040.01.86 (accessed 8 December 2015).

34.

Mandende

(2009) A study of Tshivenda personal names. PhD thesis, University of South Africa, South Africa.

35.

Marwick

(2013) Online identity. In: Hartley

Burgess

Bruns

(eds) Companion to New Media Dynamics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 355−364.

36.

Mashige

(2011) Essences of presence in the construction of identity. Southern African Journal for Folklore Studies 21(1): 13−26.

37.

Mathivha

MER

(1961) Mabalanganye. King William’s Town: Thanda Press.

38.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

39.

Molefe

(1999) Onomastic aspects of Zulu nicknames with special reference to source and functionality. PhD thesis, University of South Africa, South Africa.

40.

Moyo

(1996) Personal names and naming practices in northern Malawi. Nomina Africana 10(1/2): 10−19.

41.

Ndimande

(1998) A semantic analysis of Zulu surnames. Nomina Africana 12(2): 89−98.

42.

Neethling

(2005) Naming among the Xhosa of Southern Africa: Studies in Onomastics. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

43.

ḓefefe

(2005) Milomo Ya Nukala. ḓhohoyanḓo: Kalahari.

44.

ḓephawe

(2004) Mutsinda U ḓo ḓovhowa. ḓhohoyanḓou: Nev productions.

45.

Pablé

(2013) Integrating Rorty and (social) constructivism: A view from Harrisian semiology. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 1−23. Available at: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/02691728.2013.782587 (accessed 8 December 2015).

46.

Pablé

(2014) Reality re-checked and Galileo re-integrated: A reply to Jones and Spurrett. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3(2): 49−57. Available at: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-1h9 (accessed 20 February 2015).

47.

Puskás

(2009) “ We Belong to Them”: Narratives of Belonging, Homeland and Nationhood in Territorial and Non-Territorial Minority Settings. Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.

48.

Said

(1978) Orientalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

49.

Sengani

(2015) Emancipatory discourse in the names of children of the present generation: Some attempts of balancing power relations with special reference to Tshivenḓa naming practices. Literator 36(1): 1−10. Available at: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4102/lit.v36i1.1087 (accessed 8 December 2015).

50.

Sillander

(2010) Teknonymy, name-avoidance, solidarity, and individuation among the Bentian of Indonesian Borneo. In: Yangwen

MacDonald

(eds) Personal Names in Asia: History, Culture and Identity. Singapore: NUS Press, pp. 101–127.

51.

Silverstein

(1976) Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. In: Basso

KJH

Selby

(eds) Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 11−55.

52.

Simelane-Kalumba

(2014) The use of proverbial names among the Xhosa society: Socio-cultural approach. MA dissertation, University of the Western Cape, South Africa.

53.

Suzman

(1994) Names as pointers: Zulu personal naming practices. Language in Society 23: 253−272.

54.

Thipa

(1983) By their names you shall know them. Proceedings of the Second Southern African Names Congress. Pretoria: HSRC.

55.

Thipa

(1987) What shall we name him? Nomina Africana 1(2): 107−119.

56.

Turkle

(1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.

57.

Turkle

(1997) Multiple subjectivity and virtual community at the end of the Freudian century. Sociological Inquiry 67(1): 72−84.

58.

Verboven

Carlier

Dumolyn

(2007) A short manual to the art of prosopography. In: Keats-Rohan

KSB

(ed.) Prosopography Approaches and Applications. A Handbook. Oxford: Unit for Prosopographical Research, pp. 35−69.

59.

Weedon

(1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. London: Blackwell.

60.

Whorf

(1956) Language, Thought and Reality. New York: Wiley.

61.

Willis

(1994) Personal Names and the Construction of Social Identities among the Bondei and Giryana. Toronto: Canada.

62.

Wittgenstein

(1968) Philosophical Investigations (Trans. Anscombe

GEM

). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

63.

Woodward

(1997) Concepts of identity and difference. In: Woodward

(ed.) Identity and Differences. London: Sage Publications, pp. 8−61.