A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Ferdi Bozkurt, Anadolu University, ferdib@anadolu.edu.tr Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi, Payam-e Noor University, manadana.mohamadi@gmail.com Abstract Both fear and horror have been extensively explored as universal unpleasant emotions with significant effects on psychological well-being. It is believed that horror is the feeling aroused when watching a horror film, and a sense of suspense and resolution is behind it. The present study explores how cultural, social, interactive, and cognitive contexts influence Turkish and American horror film naming. The present study aims to analyze Turkish and American horror film titles based on a socio-onomastic approach. So, 223 Turkish (1949-2021) and 2840 American (1898-2023) horror movie titles were investigated. The hypothesis was that Turkish horror film naming uses religious elements due to religious background. But according to the present study's findings, religious elements are also available in USA horror film naming. Yet, while making and naming their films, American horror film producers pay more attention to cultural events than Turkish filmmakers. On the other hand, the keywords used in naming Turkish and American horror films, regardless of their languages, were the same. Keywords: Corpus-based; Socio-onomastic; sociolinguistics; Turkish; American; Film naming; Horror New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu http://www.library.pitt.edu/ http://www.pitt.edu/ http://www.library.pitt.edu/articles/digpubtype/index.html http://www.upress.pitt.edu/upressIndex.aspx CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 419 Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Introduction Horror films have been one of the most popular genres (Wood & Lippe, 1979, p.13) even if we do not like watching horror films, we have an experience of what horror films are and what kind of experience they offer. Neither the horror movie genre nor the marketing term "horror movie" existed during the early days of cinema (Rhodes, 2018, p.10). The first American-made film featuring the devil was the Cavalier’s Dream this particular devil seems to be the first horror- themed character to appear in more than one American film, a type of repetition on which the later horror movie genre depended (Rhodes, 2018, p.129). Carroll (2003) considers horror, a genre that encompasses various art forms and media. He calls this type of horror "art-horror" and distinguishes it from natural horror. Novels, films, plays, paintings, and other works can contain the horror genre if they are marked by the presence of monsters. That is why Wood describes horror films as normality threatened by monsters which can change from period to period based on the society (Wood & Lippe,1979,p.14). These monsters can be of either supernatural or sci-fi origin (Carroll, 2003). Horror films can reawaken old feelings and behaviors in us, such as fight or flight, dread of the dark, and a need for community (Kawin, 2012). Horror films are used to highlight unconscious fears, desires, and urges that are buried deep in our subconscious. They help us to release our anxiety and fears and burn our negative feelings and worries about the ordinary world (Park, 2018). One of the motivations for watching horror films is to defy fear, explore the unknown, and have a particular pleasure connected to the mechanism of watching, which provokes imagination, CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 420 guessing, and expectations while following the occurrences (Ammer, 2021). In horror films, the source of horror can include fear of the unknown, fear of the known that has turned out to be harmful, and fear of anything connected to damage (Asaad, 1990, p. 44). Much classic horror fictions were used to deal with a fear of the dark (Perron, 2009, p.1 9), then horror movies brought together the concepts of vampire and devil and set the foundation for future horror films entailing symbolisms of vampires, devil, and sorcerer (Kawin, 2012,). Repeating these characters, settings, and other themes from one genre to the next adds to the appeal. The ghost from an original take on the ghost story is still there, and it carries ghosts from previous works and fresh opportunities to work with or against genre clichés. The same chances present themselves repeatedly in scenarios (Kawin, 2012). Various terror situations are also restricting. It's nice to have a compelling explanation of why someone can't immediately leave town or rush to the police in the case of a real-world scenario (Perron, 2009). It seems that the first element in horror films that attract the attention of audiences before seeing it is the title. The title is the primary element by which a film is referred to and marketed, they are a source of inspiration, a tool for revision, and even a subtle hint for unsophisticated audiences (Haidegger, 2015, p. 425). Since these horror factors can change based on current events of society and the necessary changes of the day the present research takes a diachronic socio-onomastic approach toward naming Turkish and American horror movies to answer the following questions: 1. What are the frequencies of horror-related terms in the studied corpora? 2. What are the diachronic changes in the USA and Turkish horror film production? 3. Which creatures have been used in naming USA and Turkish horror films during past years? 4. Which animals have been used in naming USA and Turkish horror films during past years? CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 421 5. Which cultural events have been used in naming horror films during past years? 6. Is there any relationship between horror-related terms, cultural and religious matters? Literature Review Over the past two decades, studies have provided significant, ground-breaking information on socio-onomastics. These studies have been conducted by scholars in human geography, creating a 'critical turn' in onomastics as a whole (Berg and Vuolteenaho, 2009). Still, there is very little published research on the socio-onomastic approach, particularly in the case of movie titles. The following briefly describes studies on films and the socio-onomastic approach. In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature on movies in the general sense and horror movies specifically. Bernstein (2007) identifies New York place names in movie titles. He considers titles as names; thus, onomastics should comprehend them. According to him, a title should summarize the movie's content so that potential audiences know about it. Most movie titles are short and easier to remember, so they have a significant impact. Surveys such as that conducted by Gola-Brydniak (2011) indicate that a title is intended to promote a film and urge potential viewers to see it. Therefore, we can describe it as a component of advertising discourse. According to her, the length of a film's title can range from one lexeme to one phrase, which qualifies it as a subgenre of this discourse known as a slogan. So, the film title should remain in a more or less close relationship with the film plot to indicate its theme. Falck-Kjällquist (2016) regarding cinema films mentions that several theoretical and practical problems are connected with the names in cinema films but does not explain further and merely mentions that at least 90 percent of cinema films are adaptions from literary sources. Gabrić et al. (2017) created a corpus of 935 film titles (1923-2017) and their translations into Croatian and German. Their findings indicated considerable differences over the decades in translation methods for movie titles. CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 422 Sa'eed and Jubran (2019) reported that in some horror films, men are portrayed as slaughterers who victimize women in various ways. Women, in general, play a significant role in most horror films and are almost always portrayed as the primary characters for fundamental reasons. Sun, Gao, and Tan (2020) pointed out that movie titles are likened to trademarks and are visible in the flick. Titles are utilized to entice the audience's attention and build interest in the production. The movie's last line is also the movie's name - thus playing an essential role in guiding its viewers. Moreover, film titles can be viewed as an intricate ingredient of cinematic dialogue and an essential part of a movie's plan to keep viewers interested. Bozkurt (2021) took a corpus-based approach toward Turkish movie names from 1917 to 2020. His corpus included 15 genres and 7923 movies. Regarding Turkish movie titles, Bozkurt reported that three words movie titles are the most frequent ones. Kolahdouz Mohammadi (2022) studied cohesive devices in naming Turkish television series over the past decade. During this study, she collected 702 titles (2010–2020). She stated that the reference had the highest frequency, which indicated the producer's creation of a relationship between the content of Turkish television series and their titles. The abovementioned studies presented thus far provide evidence that not many studies have been conducted regarding movie titles worldwide in recent years, and what they failed to do is to teach the social and cultural elements in these titles. Theoretical Framework Labov initiated the basic principles of sociolinguistics by publishing his landmark doctoral dissertation Social Stratification of English in New York City (1966). The social nature of language has provided a suitable platform for the birth of a new field of knowledge called sociolinguistics, which talks about the usage and function of language as a communication tool in society. CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 423 Meanwhile, a name is one of the most fundamental and unavoidable entities (Zandi et al., 2018). Names come into being due to the particular culture and society in which they exist. Not only do they form part of the language, but also of a person's environment. People name objects that seem essential; thereby they exercise a certain level of control over their surroundings, ultimately making it part of their cultural identity (Ainiala, 2016). These names can include personal names, place names, plant names, food names, movie names, and many other names. Names serve a crucial societal function in addition to their function (Ainiala and Östman, 2017). Names are not just arbitrary symbols; they signify status, achievement, privilege, and meaningful social organization. They may communicate ethnicity, social status, and prestige, all understood as significant within social contexts. Since names provide meanings, they also guide activity by providing plans which transmit cultural knowledge and help us to choose among projects of action (Leslie and Skipper, 1990, p. 273). In the present research, the point of departure is to study movie titles to indicate that they are also devices used to represent various social and cultural events. There are several reasons why a movie's title matters. It is what immediately grabs the attention of the audience, and they decide whether to watch the film or not. It has a significant impact on how audiences will remember the film. Moreover, it's essential for supporting and boosting sales and recommendations. Terhi Ainiala has proposed that socio-onomastics encompasses personal and place names and examines how they vary according to social, cultural, and situational aspects. Then, to gain insight into socio-onomastics, derived techniques from sociolinguistics are employed (Ainiala, 2016, p. 2). Therefore, socio-onomastics adopt a systematic perspective on the dynamic analysis of names and look at how names are used. Weiss (2019) divides proper names into two categories of no- sense and sense ones. In the no-sense, it is believed that names stand for particular objects with no CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 424 meaning, while the sense ones have disguised descriptions and a referent. In socio-onomastics, we use the sense of name to indicate which elements and messages they are trying to convey. Like every study, this study had its limitations. The first limitation was the horror film names, as different countries produce different numbers of films within a year. Therefore, while interpreting the data, authors were cautious and analyzed these two corpora separately and then started to find the common points regarding socio-onomastic. Another limitation of this study is that a new era has begun for Turkish horror cinema within the past few years, where more films per year are produced. Most studies primarily focused on the Islamic motifs of these films (Gjinali and Tunca 2020), and none have examined the naming approaches of these films. Last but not least is the severe deficiency regarding the socio-onomastic approach to naming the film naming in the review of the literature. Methodology In this study, American horror film names (n=2840) were collected from Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the online database of information related to films from (1898-2023) and Turkish horror film names (n=223) from (1949-2021) were collected from previously conducted article by (Bozkurt 2021). This study is devoted only to horror films, so other genres will not be studied. It should be noted that since the data of American horror film names outweighs the body of Turkish horror film names each copora was studied separately and their diachronic trends have been statistically evaluated. After collecting the data, the Key Word In Context (KWIC) lemma was extracted using text analysis tools. A lemma is usually found in dictionaries and represents the basic form of a word. Lemma belongs to the same basic word class; for example, the verb lemma walk consists of the words walk, walked, walking, and walks (Baker, 2006). CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 425 4.1 Data analysis The data for this research include two corpora of American and Turkish horror film names. Table 1 represents the details of these corpora regarding the highest frequent words. Table 1. Details of compiled corpus Corpus Year of production Analyzed titles TTR American Horror 1898-2023 2840 31.91% Turkish Horror 1949-2021 223 69.84% According to Table 17,921 words (tokens) and 2,528 unique word forms in the USA corpus and 441 total words (tokens) and 308 unique word forms in the Turkish corpus were studied. TTR (Type/Token Ratio) reveals more about corpus size than lexical repetition or uniqueness (Baker 2006). While the number of tokens in a corpus refers to the total number of words, the number of types refers to the total number of unique words. In the USA corpus, the term "dead" appeared 109 times but only counted as a one-word type. Types are used in calculating a text or corpus's type/token ratio (TTR, a measure of lexical repetition) (Baker, 2006). A high TTR indicates a large amount of lexical variation, and a low TTR indicates relatively slight lexical variation. We can say that the word selection is less varied in USA corpus, with 31.91% TTR than in the Turkish corpus, with 69.84%. CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 426 Table 2. Most frequent KWIC in naming horror films in USA and Turkey USA corpus Count Relative Turkish corpus Count Relative blood* 118 0.014897109 cin* 41 0.09297052 dead* 109 0.013760889 şeytan* 11 0.02494331 house* 63 0.007953541 kara* 11 0.02494331 evil* 55 0.006943567 7 büyü* 8 0.01814059 dark* 50 0.006312334 4 ölü* 6 0.013605442 kill* 42 0.005302360 7 lanet* 6 0.013605442 hell* 42 0.005302360 7 dabbe* 6 0.013605442 death* 39 0.004923620 7 üç* 5 0.011337869 zombi* 37 0.004671127 5 siccin* 5 0.011337869 massacre* 35 0.004418634 harfliler* 5 0.011337869 terror* 34 0.004292387 5 kanlı* 4 0.009070295 haunt* 34 0.004292387 5 azem* 4 0.009070295 CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 427 vampire* 33 0.004166140 7 aşk* 4 0.009070295 curse* 33 0.004166140 7 araf* 4 0.009070295 devil* 32 0.004039894 azap/azab* 4 0.009070295 witch* 31 0.003913647 5 ruh* 3 0.006802721 horror* 31 0.003913647 5 gece* 3 0.006802721 monster* 28 0.003534907 2 deccal* 3 0.006802721 demon* 28 0.003534907 2 musallat* 2 0.004535147 5 scream* 27 0.003408660 4 azazil* 2 0.004535147 5 ghost* 27 0.003408660 4 iblis 2 0.004535147 5 black* 27 0.003408660 4 ayet* 2 0.004535147 5 As can be seen in Table 2, the most frequent words in the USA corpus were blood*(118); night*(109), dead*(118), house*(63), evil*(55), dark*(50), kill*(42), and hell*(42). In this corpus, the frequency of some synonym terms was different. i.e., home*(9) and house*(63) are synonyms CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 428 but according to Britannica, a house is a structure in which an individual resides. Yet, home can refer to any place that a person regards as part of their living space, regardless of form, be it a house, an apartment, a tent, a boat, or even an underground cave. Another example is dead*(109), kill*(42), death*(39), die*(18), all of which somehow indicate death, but their part of speech and semantic features are different. In the second corpus, the Turkish one, the most frequent words were cin*(41), şeytan*(11), kara*(11), büyü*(8), ölü*(6). These words were related to religion, but when we compare them with the previous corpus, we find similar KWIC, such as the ones mentioned in Table 3. Interestingly, the frequency of "üç*" and "harfliler*" is the same according to the corpus, and they were used as collocations to indicate the notion "cin" which is also three words. Table 3. Most frequent KWIC in naming horror films in USA and Turkey KWIC in USA Count Relative KWIC in Turkish Count Relative blood* 118 0.014897109 kan* 5 0.011337869 dead* 109 0.013760889 ölü* 6 0.013605442 death* 39 0.004923620 die* 18 0.002272440 kill* 42 0.005302360 satan* 16 0.002019947 şeytan* 11 0.02494331 evil* 55 0.006943567 devil* 32 0.004039894 azazil* 2 0.004535147 demon* 28 0.003534907 iblis* 2 0.004535147 CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 429 night* 109 0.013760889 gece* 3 0.00680272 black* 27 0.003408660 kara* 11 0.02494331 dark* 50 0.006312334 ghost* 27 0.003408660 ruh* 3 0.006802721 hell* 42 0.005302360 cehennem* 2 0.004535147 haunt* 34 0.004292387 büyü* 8 0.01814059 lanet* 6 0.013605442 curse* 33 0.004166140 dabbe* 6 0.013605442 musallat* 2 0.004535147 The authors compared some common KWIC in the English corpus and the equivalent in Turkish (Table 3). Although the size of the two corpora was not the same, common KWIC were identified in both corpora, indicating that horror film producers use the same elements to create horror. Although at first glance it seems that Turkish horror film naming uses religious elements, when we look at Table 3 we get to know that these elements are also available in USA horror film naming as well for instance the term şeytan in Turkish can be seen in various forms in USA horror film naming such as satan, devil, demon, evil. Comparison diagrams indicate the yearly production of the horror film. According to Diagram 1, year 2008 was the year in which the highest number of horror films has been produced in the USA, and in 1971 about 31 horror films has been made. The produced films' frequency in the years other than the ones in Diagram 1 was less than 31; consequently, in 1951, 1916, 1914,1910,1908, and 1898, only one horror film has been produced. Regarding the production of USA horror films, Diagram 1 indicates the frequency of produced films over the past decades in which the year 1990 is a boom decade among other decades. CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 430 Diagram 1. Years and decades in which USA horror film production had the highest frequency According to Diagram 2, which belongs to Turkish horror film production, 2019 was the year of the highest number of horror film production in Turkey. It can be said that except in 2021 and 2020, from 2010-2019, we can observe an ascending trend in the production of horror films in Turkey. On the other hand, when we observe the decades year 2020 is the boom decade among other decades. 0. 0.0175 0.035 0.0525 0.07 2008 2006 2004 2010 1980 1950 1920 1982 1986 1999 2003 2019 1976 2011 2015 1985 0. 0.035 0.07 0.105 0.14 2019 2016 2021 2014 2012 2009 2010 2008 2005 1999 2000 1993 1978 1973 1965 1949 CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 431 Diagram 2. Years and decades in which Turkey horror film production had highest frequency The following figures have been extracted using online data mining tools to determine the cultural and religious relationship between keywords and their collocates in Turkish and American horror films. Figure 1. relationship between keywords and their collocates in Turkish corpus In Figure 1, the blue terms indicate the keywords, the orange ones indicate collocates and this figure indicates their proximity. As indicated in Figure 1, there is a relationship between high frequent main terms cin and siccin, azem, and aşk. Figure 2 shows the exact relationship between evil and eye in the USA corpus. CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 432 Figure 2. relationship between keywords and their collocates in USA corpus Table 4 and Diagram 1 indicate the creatures used in USA horror film naming and the years filmmakers used them. According to them, zombie*, vampire*, devil*, witch* are the most frequent, with over 30 frequencies during the last decades and used repeatedly. It should be noted that as the frequency of these words is high their number of repetitions during intuition and ending is also high. For example, pumpkinhead* has occurred four times in 1998, 1994, 2006, and 2007. Table 4. Name of creatures used in USA horror film naming Creatures in USA Count Relative Starting year Ending Year zombie* 37 0.0046711275 1932 2020 vampire* 33 0.0041661407 1933 2008 devil* 32 0.004039894 1933 2021 witch* 31 0.0039136475 1971 2018 monster* 28 0.0035349072 1925 2008 demon* 28 0.0035349072 1977 2016 CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 433 ghost* 27 0.0034086604 1922 2020 killer* 24 0.0030299204 1967 2020 frankenstein* 22 0.0027774272 1910 2014 dr 20 0.0025249338 1908 2005 dracula* 19 0.002398687 1931 2008 satan* 16 0.002019947 1969 2010 witchcraft* 15 0.0018937003 1988 2006 creature* 14 0.0017674536 1954 2009 puppet* 13 0.0016412069 1989 2018 alien* 12 0.0015149602 1979 2017 jekyll* 11 0.0013887136 1913 2007 doctor* 10 0.0012624669 1908 1972 paranormal* 8 0.0010099735 1932 2022 boogeyman* 8 0.0010099735 2007 2021 Satan* 7 0.0008837268 1980 2023 ghoulies* 5 0.00063123344 1969 2010 ghosts* 5 0.00063123344 1985 1994 pumpkinhead* 4 0.00050498673 1988 2007 predator* 4 0.00050498673 1990 2018 Candyman* 4 0.0005008765 1992 2021 Scarecrow* 4 0.0005008765 1981 2003 CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 434 Diagram 3 indicates the year filmmakers started to use these creatures in film naming, and the year in which they ended in USA horror film naming. According to this diagram, some words had a more extended period of use in film naming than others, for example, filmmakers have used zombie* from 1932-2020 so this creature has 88 years old, although vampire* has roughly the same frequency but year 2008 was the year in which this creature expired and filmmakers did not use it after that. Diagram 3 Creatures in USA horror films and their years Table 5 indicates the creatures used in Turkish horror film naming and the years filmmakers used to use them. According to this table, most of these creatures are based on religious beliefs for instance cin* and üç harfliler* both refer to Jinn, that according to Islamic references, are real creatures from another world that cause physical and mental harm to human beings. On the other hand, şeytan* and iblis* refer to satan as a creature that seduces humans into sin or untruth. Karabasan refers to a supernatural creature in Turkish folklore that is an ugly-looking human being, indicating that the supernatural being has the ability to manifest in human form and is believed to cause paralysis upon falling asleep or awakening, or it can simply refer to the experience of this form of paralysis (Jalal et al. 2021). Deccal in Turkish refers to Dajjal as an evil figure in Islamic theology. Paranormal can be taken as the English translation of the word piskopat 1903 1933 1963 1993 2023 zombie* monster* frankenstein* witchcraft* werewolf* boogeyman* predator* Start End CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 435 both refer to a psychopathic person suffering from a severe mental disorder. Hüddam is also related to jinn, satan, and ghosts, and in the Islamic religion, it is a science that aims to control the jinn who are Muslims, it is a sin to practice. Zohak is a demonic figure in Iranian mythology. Table 5. Name of creatures used in Turkish horror film naming Creatures in Turkish Count Relative Starting year Ending Year cin* 41 0.09490741 2008 2021 şeytan* 11 0.025462963 1974 2021 üç harfliler* 5 0.011574074 2010 2018 ruh* 3 0.0069444445 2007 2021 iblis* 3 0.0069444445 2010 2019 deccal* 3 0.0069444445 2015 2019 karabasan* 2 0.0046296297 2015 2019 hüddam* 2 0.0046296297 2014 2018 ervah* 1 0.0023148148 2017 - zohak* 1 0.0023148148 2018 - Gulyabani* 1 0.0023148148 2014 - paranormal* 1 0.0023148148 2011 - piskopat* 1 0.0023148148 2005 - Diagram 4 indicates the year filmmakers started to use creatures in Turkish film naming, and the year in which they ended using them in naming. According to this diagram, some creatures had a longer period of use in film naming than others, for example, Turkish filmmakers have used şeytan* from 1974-2021 so this religious creature has 47 years old, still, cin* has a higher frequency CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 436 but it has only 14 years old. On the other hand, some creatures had only one frequency like pikopat*, zohak*, paranormal, gulyabani*, and ervah*. Diagram 4 Creatures in Turkish horror films and their years Table 6 indicates the animals used in USA horror film naming and the years filmmakers used to use them. According to this table, most of these animals are the ones we know in our daily lives. On the other hand, in Turkish film naming, the only animal's name was dabbe*, which means an animal or a baby camel in a more specific sense. Another interesting finding was that in naming USA films, fly has been used, but this creature was available in almost all the contexts of Turkish horror films Table 6. name of animals used in USA horror film naming Creatures in USA Count Relative Starting year Ending Year beast* 19 0.002398687 1946 2008 wolf* 15 0.001893700 3 1913 2010 shark* 12 0.001514960 2 1913 2017 1972 1985 1997 2010 2022 cin* üç harfliler* iblis* karabasan* zohak* Gulyabani* piskopat* Start End CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 437 cat* 11 0.001388713 6 1927 1985 dog* 5 0.000631233 44 1971 2011 bird* 5 0.000631233 44 1963 2019 piranha* 4 0.000504986 73 1978 2012 ape* 4 0.000504986 73 1928 1944 gorilla* 3 0.000378740 05 1927 1950 snake* 3 0.000378740 05 2006 2007 anaconda* 3 0.000378740 05 1997 2008 monkey* 3 0.000378740 05 1933 2007 fly* 3 0.000378740 05 1946 2007 bees* 2 0.000252493 37 1976 2002 CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 438 Scorpion* 1 0.000126246 68 1956 - ants* 1 0.000126246 68 1977 - mosquito* 1 0.000126246 68 1995 - Diagram 5 indicates the year filmmakers started using animals in USA film naming, and the year they ended up using them. According to this diagram, beast* had the highest frequency which indicates that at the initial stages, filmmakers used a large or dangerous four-footed to frighten and attract the attention of their audiences, later other types of animals were used. On the other hand, some animals had a longer period of use in film naming than others, for example, USA filmmakers have used wolf* from 1913-2010 over the past 97 years, and sark* with lower frequency has been used over the past 104 years. Yet, some creatures had only one frequency, like scorpions and ants. It was interesting that both snake* and anaconda* had the same occurrence but anaconda* has been used for 11 years and snake* for 1 year. CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 439 Diagram 5. Animals in USA horror films and their years Table 8 indicates the cultural events (Christmas, Halloween, Black Friday, etc.) used in USA horror film naming and the years filmmakers used to use them. According to this table, Halloween* has the highest frequency, primarily associated with ghosts and spirits. Day of dead* or death day* is an important yearly festival in South American countries. Prom night* is the most important dance of high school senior year in American English. A hunting season* is a period when hunting and killing a particular species is legal. Black Friday* is the Friday following Thanksgiving Day to begin the holiday shopping season. There was a horror film named Thankskilling that triggered the Thanksgiving festival. Table 7. Cultural events in USA horror film naming Cultural events Count Relative Starting year Ending Year Halloween* 17 0.0021461938 1981 2022 Christmas* 5 0.00063123344 1980 2019 Day of the Dead* 4 0.00050498673 1985 2018 Death day* 2 0.00037874005 2017 2019 Prom night* 2 0.00025249337 1992 2008 1912 1922 1932 1942 1952 1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 2022 beast* shark* dog* piranha* gorilla* anaconda* fly* Scorpion* mosqito* Start End CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 440 April Fool's Day* 2 0.00025249337 1980 2008 Hunting season* 1 0.00012624668 2007 - Black Friday* 1 0.00012624668 1940 - Mother's Day* 1 0.00012624668 1980 - Diagram 6 indicates the year filmmakers started using cultural events in USA film naming. The earliest events were black friday* and, subsequently, Mother's Day*, April fool's day* and Christmas* which started in 1980. Diagram 6. Cultural events in USA horror films and their years Based on this diagram, filmmakers began to use Day of the dead* in 1985, ended using it in 2018, and subsequently started using the equivalent of this event from 2017-2019. Holloween was used one year after 1981, the most frequent from 1981-2022 for the past 41 years. Regarding cultural events in Turkish horror films, there was no naming based on these events. 1933 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003 2013 2023 Halloween* Christmas* Day of the dead* Death day* Prom night* April fool’s day* black friday* Mother’s day* Hunting season* Start End CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 441 Discussion and Conclusion Our study aimed to investigate Turkish and American horror film naming based on a socio- onomastic approach to answer the research questions. As expected, our results showed that the same KWICs were used in Turkish and USA corpora in Table 3. In other words, KWIC, such as blood, death, evil, black, ghost, hell, haunt, and curse, were found in both corpora. This corresponds with findings of previous research on horror films in which characters, settings, and other themes can repeat (Kawin, 2012). The second question in this study sought to determine the diachronic approach of Turkish and USA film naming. The most important result was that the year 1990 was a boom decade in USA corpus. The year 2008 was when the highest number of horror films were produced in the USA. Still, in Turkish corpus 2019 was the year in which the highest number of the horror film has been produced and 2020 was the boom decade in this corpus, which indicates that Turkish horror film production is still a new industry. On question three, this study found that zombie*, vampire*, devil*, witch* were used in USA horror film naming during the last decades. In Turkish horror films, filmmakers used creatures like cin* and üç harfliler* mostly based on religious beliefs. A possible explanation might be that Turkey accepts Islam, and the presence of jinns has been mentioned in the Holy Qur'an. In Turkish folklore, jinns, and other supernatural beings are also available. Concerning the fourth and fifth research questions, it was found that USA film naming uses plenty of animal and cultural events, but in the case of Turkish film naming, only one animal name was used, and there was no evidence of using cultural events. Based on figures (1 and 2) there is a relationship between horror-related terms and cultural and religious matters. An interesting finding about this figure is that according to religious beliefs, if you constantly receive bad news or bad events happen to you, then there is an evil eye on you, and to ward off evil spirits you have to wear CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 442 Nazar Boncuğu. In the Turkish corpus, there was a relationship between Nazar and Şeytan (fig.1). In the USA corpus, there was also a relationship between evil and eye (fig.2). The findings from this study make several contributions to the current literature, as it indicates that USA film naming not only emphasizes religious matters and creatures but also surprisingly tries to attract audiences' attention toward cultural events. This feature was not available in Turkish film naming. When USA horror film naming is compared with Turkey, it becomes evident that American horror film naming is much better as it depicts all aspects of life. So, in addition to blood, dark, ghost, evil, and many other typical elements, USA horror film naming uses other extraordinary features to horrify the audiences. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ainiala, T. & Östman, J. O. (Eds.). 2017. Socio-onomastics: The pragmatics of Names (Vol. 275). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ainiala, T. (2016). Names in Society. In Carole Hough & Daria Izdebska (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 371-382. Ammer, S. M. E. I. (2021). Content Analysis of Lighting and Color in the Embodiment of Fear Concept in Horror Movies: A Semiotic Approach. Information Sciences Letters. 9(2), 135- 142. Asaad, Y. M. (1990). Psychology of Fear. Egypt: Renaissance Egypt for Printing and Publishing. Baker, P. (2006). Glossary of Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press. Benshoff, H. M. (Ed.). (2017). A companion to the Horror Film. John Wiley & Sons. CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 443 Berg, L. D., and Vuolteenaho, Jani (Eds.). (2009). Critical Toponymies. The Contested Politics of Place-Naming. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Bernstein, Jay. H. (2007). New York placenames in film titles. Names, 55(2), 139-166. Bozkurt, Ferdi. 2021. Türk film adlarına derlem tabanlı bir bakış. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (24), 93-127. DOI: 10.29000/rumelide.995421 Carroll, N. (2003). The Philosophy of Horror, or Paradoxes of the Heart. New York: Routledge. Debus, F. (1995). “Soziolinguistik der Eigennamen. Name und Gesellschaft (Sozio-Onomastik).” In Namenforschung, Name Studies, Les noms propres, ed. by Ernst Eichler et al., Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 393–399. Falck-Kjällquist, B. (2016). Genre-based Approaches to Names in Literature. The Oxford handbook of names and naming. Oxford University Press. Gabrić, P., Brajković, I., Licchetta, L., Bezuh, J., & Ključarić, D. K. (2017). A Comparative and Diachronic Analysis of Film Title Translations and Appellative Effect Transfer into Croatian and German. Hieronymus: Journal of Translation Studies and Terminology, 4(1), 1-27. Gjinali, V. & Tunca, E. A. (2020). A General Look on the Impact of Turkish Horror Movies: An Exploratory Study on the Opinions of Youth on Horror Movies. SAGE Open, 10(4), 2158244020979701. Gola-Brydniak, M. (2011). The word is not enough? a linguistic analysis of James Bond film titles. Linguistica Silesiana 32, http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12128/1117 Heidegger, I. (2015). What’s in a name? The art of movie titling. Word & Image, 31(4), 425-441. Jalal, B. H. & Eskici, S., Acartürk, C., & Hinton, D. E. (2021). Beliefs about Sleep Paralysis in Turkey: Karabasan Attack. Transcultural Psychiatry 58(3): 414-426. Kawin, B. F. (2012). Horror and Horror Film. Anthem Press. Kolahdouz Mohammadi, M. (2022). Cohesive Devices İn Turkish Televisionseries' Naming, The http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12128/1117 CINEJ Cinema Journal: Ferdi Bozkurt and Mandana Kolahdouz Mohammadi Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 444 proceedings of 2nd conference on Onomastic. ISBN: 978-601-7999-79-7 Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Leslie, P. L., & Skipper, J. K. (1990). Toward a Theory of Nicknames: A Case for Socio- onomastics. Names, 38(4), 273-282. Özkaracalar, K. (1945). Horror films in Turkish cinema: To use or not to use local cultural motifs, that is not the question. European Nightmares: Horror Cinema in Europe since 1945, edited by Patricia Allmer, Emily Brick, David Huxley, 249-260. Park, M. (2018). The Aesthetics and Psychology Behind Horror Films. Undergraduate Honors College Theses 2016-. 31. https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/post_honors_theses/31 Perron, B. (Ed.). (2009). Horror Video Games: Essays on the Fusion of Fear and Play. North Carolina: McFarland. Redfern, N. (2021). A Data Set for US Horror Film Trailers: Arts and Media. Research Data Journal for the Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(aop), 1-12. Redfern, N. (2012). The impact of sound technology on the distribution of shot lengths in Hollywood cinema, 1920 to 1933. CINEJ Cinema Journal, 2(1), 77-94. Rhodes, G. D. (2018). The Birth of the American Horror Film. Edinburgh University Press. Sa'eed, M. K. & Jubran, H. S. Y. (2019). The Representation of Women in the Horror Movies: A Study in Selected Horror Movies. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 5(1), 14-17. Sun, X., Gao, C. & Tan, Y. (2020). Analysis of Principles and Techniques of English Film Titles Translation. International Conference on Social Science and Education Research http://proceedings-online.com/proceedings_series/SHSOCIALS/SSER2020/SSER06801.pdf Weiss, A.S. (2019). Imaginary Onomastics. Translation Studies, 12(1), 100–108. https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/post_honors_theses/31 http://proceedings-online.com/proceedings_series/SHSOCIALS/SSER2020/SSER06801.pdf CINEJ Cinema Journal: A Corpus-Based Socio-Onomastic Analysis on Turkish and American Horror Film Naming Volume 11.2 (2023) | ISSN 2158-8724 (online) | DOI 10.5195/cinej.2023.589 | http://cinej.pitt.edu 445 Wood, R., & Lippe, R. (1979). American Nightmare: essays on the horror film. Toronto: Festival of Festivals, 10, 15. Zandi, B., Rovsan, B. & Amirykhah, M. (2018). A Comparative Study of Naming Traditional Cafes and Coffee Shops in Tehran from a Socio-onomastic Perspective. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1(4), 30-41.