
7+(62&,2/,18,67,&62)(1(5(10,1,1
ENGLISH-SPEAKINGSOCIETIES
H7KL0LQK7KDR
(PDLOWKDROWPKRHQ
Received:05/08/2024
Revised:17/02/2025
Accepted:26/02/2025
DOI:10.59266/houjs.2025.539
EVWDFWNamesservenotonlyasmarkersofindividualidentitybutalsoascultural
artifactsthatencapsulatesocietalvalues,historicalcontexts,andlinguisticevolution.This
studyprovidesacomprehensiveanalysisofgenderednamingconventionsinEnglish-speaking
communities, tracing their historical trajectories and examining contemporary trends.
Employing a mixed-methods approach that integrates both quantitative and qualitative
analyses,theresearchinvestigatesnamingpracticesfromtheAnglo-Saxonperiodtomodern
shiftstowardgenderinclusivity.Thendingsrevealthatwhiletraditionalgenderassociations
in naming remain deeply embedded, gender-neutral names are growing alongside the
profoundinuenceofglobalizationandtechnologicaladvancementsonnamingconventions.
By synthesizing insights from etymology, sociolinguistics, and cultural studies, this study
elucidatestheroleofnamesinbothreectingandshapingindividualidentitywithindynamic
WDDQGVDSHV
.HRV gender naming, cultural identity, historical inuences, sociolinguistic, naming
WHQGV
HanoiOpenUniversity
,,QWURGFWLRQ
1DPV DU DQ LQJUDO SDU R
cultural identity, serving as markers of
societal values, historical contexts, and
linguistic evolution. In English-speaking
societies, naming conventions have long
been shaped by a blend of historical,
religious, and socio-political inuences.
These inuences have not only dictated
KLFK QDPV DU FRQVLU DSSURSULD
forspecicgendersbuthavealsoreected
broader culturalnorms andchangesover
time (Reaney & Wilson, 1997; Smith-
Bannister,1997).
Historically, male names such as
WilliamandRobertwereassociatedwith
strength, leadership, and feudal roles,
KLO PDO QDPV OLN (OLDEK DQ
Maryconveyedidealsofpietyandvirtue
(Withycombe, 1977; Smith-Bannister,
1997).TheNormanConquestintroduceda
wealthofnewnamestoEngland,blending

2O (QJOLVK DQ UQFK UDLLRQV R
FUD D QDPLQJ VVP KD QUV LQ
moderncontexts(Reaney,1967;Historic
UK,2024).BytheVictorianera,naming
conventions reected rigid gender roles
and class structures, with names such as
OEU DQ 9LFRULD VPEROLLQJ URDO
andpropriety(Redmonds,2004).
Modern trends in English naming
demonstrate a shift towards inclusivity
and individualism. The rise of gender-
QUDO QDPVVFK DV7DORU DQ-RUDQ
illustrates the inuence of societal
movementschallengingtraditionalgender
binaries (ONS,2024).At thesametime,
K UVUJQF R UDLLRQDO QDPV OLN
Oliver and Charlotte reects a renewed
DSSUFLDLRQ RU FOUDO KULDJ DQ
stability (Hanks, Coates, & McClure,
2016). Names also play a role in “doing
gender,”reinforcingsocietalexpectations
through linguistic associations (PMC,
2024).
7KLV V ELOV SRQ LVLQJ
UVDUFK R DQDO SDUQV LQ JQU
QDPLQJ SUDFLFV LQ (QJOLVKVSDNLQJ
societies. Drawing on historical and
contemporary sources, it explores how
QDPV QFLRQ DV FOUDO DULDFV KD
encodesocietalvalues,adapttoevolving
norms, and inuence individual identity.
Bysynthesizinginsightsfrometymology,
sociology, and linguistics, this research
aims to provide a deeper understanding
ofthecomplexinterplaybetweennames,
culture,andgender.
,,/LWHUDWUHUHYLH
7K V R JQU QDPLQJ
SUDFLFV LQ (QJOLVKVSDNLQJ VRFLLV
provides insight into how cultural,
historical, and social norms shape
linguistic patterns. This section reviews
LVLQJ UVDUFK RQ K KLVRULFDO
evolution, sociolinguistic implications,
DQ FRQPSRUDU UQV LQ (QJOLVK
names, with a focus on their gendered
dimensions.
2.1. Historical development of
QDPHV
(QJOLVK QDPLQJ UDLLRQV D
EDFN R K QJOR6DRQ DQ 1RUPDQ
periods, when names were inuenced
E 2O (QJOLVK DQ UQFK OLQJLVLF
structures (Reaney & Wilson, 1997;
Historic UK, 2024). Male names like
William and Richard often symbolized
leadership and feudal authority, while
femalenamessuchasAliceandMargaret
embodied domestic virtues and religious
ideals(Withycombe,1977).TheNorman
Conquest signicantly reshaped naming
conventions by introducing names with
LatinandFrenchorigins,manyofwhich
remainpopulartoday(Reaney,1967).
7K9LFRULDQUDPDUNDFULLFDO
juncture,asnameslikeAlbertandVictoria
EFDP PEOPDLF R K SULRV ULJL
JQU UROV DQ KLUDUFKLFDO VRFLDO
structures(Redmonds,2004).Thisperiod
alsosawapreferenceforbiblicalnames,
reecting the profound inuence of
Christianity on English society (Smith-
Bannister,1997).
2.2.Sociolinguisticimplicationsof
QDPHV
1DPLQJ SUDFLFV DU QR PUO
OLQJLVLF SKQRPQD K DOVR QFR
societal norms and expectations.
Names contribute to “doing gender”
E ULQRUFLQJ UROV DQ UDLV P
appropriate for men and women (PMC,
2024). Male names are often associated
withattributeslikestrengthandauthority,
KLO PDO QDPV PSKDVL ED
and grace (Hanks, Coates, & McClure,

2016).Additionally,namescaninuence
perceptions of social class and success,
LPSDFLQJRSSRUQLLVLQ FDLRQDQ
employment(ONS,2024).
2.3. Contemporary trends and
HQHQHWDOLW
Modern naming practices reect a
blend of tradition and innovation. While
traditional names such as Oliver and
Charlotteremainprevalent,thereisagrowing
SUUQF RU JQUQUDO QDPV OLN
Taylor and Jordan, driven bysocietal shifts
towards inclusivity (Cottle, 1967; ONS,
2024). This trend highlights the dynamic
natureofnamingconventionsastheyadapt
tochangingculturalandsociallandscapes.
LUDU QUVFRUV K
POLDF QDU R JQU QDPLQJ
conventions, shaped by historical
contexts, sociolinguistic patterns, and
evolvingculturalnorms.Whiletraditional
names continue to dominate, the rise of
gender-neutralanduniquenamesreects
broader societal shifts toward inclusivity
and individuality. This study builds on
KVLQVLJKVRSORUKSDUQVDQ
LPSOLFDLRQVRJQUQDPLQJSUDFLFV
inEnglish-speakingsocieties.
,,,0HWRGRORJ
7KLVVDRSVDPLPKRV
approach, combining qualitative and
quantitative techniques to investigate
JQU QDPLQJ SUDFLFV LQ (QJOLVK
speaking societies. The methodology
LV VUFU LQR KU SKDVV DD
collection,dataanalysis,andcomparative
analysis, ensuring a comprehensive
SORUDLRQRKLVRULFDODQFRQPSRUDU
namingconventions.
DWDFROOHFWLRQ
DD RU KLV V DV VRUF
from historical records, census data,and
QDPUJLVULVVSDQQLQJKQJOR6DRQ
period to the modern era. These sources
include authoritative texts such as KH
Oxford Dictionary of English Christian
Names (Withycombe, 1977) and
LWLRQDR(QLVKQDPHV5DQ
& Wilson, 1997), as well as modern
databases like the Oce for National
Statistics (ONS). The dataset comprises
a representative sample of male,female,
DQ JQUQUDO QDPV DFURVVLVLQF
historicalperiods,withafocusonnotable
FOUDO VKLV VFK DV K 1RUPDQ
Conquest,theVictorianera,andthe21st-
centuryriseofinclusivity.
DWDDQDOVLV
7K FROOF QDPV U
categorized by gender, historical period,
and cultural signicance. Quantitative
FKQLTV U PSOR R PDVU
QDP UTQF DQ LQL UQV LQ
name usage over time. For example,
VDLVLFDO DQDOVV KLJKOLJK VKLV
fromtraditionalmalenameslikeWilliam
R PRUQ JQUQUDO QDPV VFK DV
Taylor. Qualitative methods, including
thematic analysis, were used to interpret
K FOUDO DQVRFLROLQJLVLFPDQLQJV
embedded inthe names,linking themto
societal values, religious inuences, and
globalintegration.
3.3.Comparativeanalysis
To contextualize ndings, this
V FRPSDU QDPLQJ SUDFLFV DFURVV
historical periods. Patterns in traditional
gender-specic names were contrasted
with emerging trends, such as the rise
of gender-neutral and culturally diverse
names.Thisphasealsoexaminedexternal
factors inuencing naming conventions,
including technological advancements,
globalization, and changing societal
attitudestowardgenderidentity.

(WKLFDOFRQVLHDWLRQV
OODDDVVRUFURPSEOLFO
available historical and governmental
records, ensuring no breach of privacy
or ethical concerns. The analysis was
conducted objectively, focusing on
QUVDQLQJ QDPLQJ SUDFLFV UDKU
thandrawingnormativeconclusions.
,9)LQGLQJVDQGGLVFVVLRQ
3DWWHQVLQHQHHQDPHV
GenderednamingpracticesinEnglish-
speaking societies reveal distinct patterns,
RQ L R FOUDO QRUPV DQ KLVRULFDO
contexts.Malenamesfrequentlyemphasize
attributeslikestrengthandleadership,while
female names tend to reect qualities of
beauty and grace. This section presents
DQ DQDOVLV R QDP UTQF DD DQ
associatedculturalconnotations.
Table1:Top5namesbygenderinEngland(1800-2020)
HDUUDQJH 0DOHQDPHV )UHTHQF
 )HPDOHQDPHV )UHTHQF

 William,James,John,Thomas,Henry 42% Elizabeth,Mary,Sarah,Ann,Jane 45%
 William,George,Charles,John,Edward 40% Mary,Elizabeth,Alice,Emma,Florence 43%
 George,Charles,Henry,Robert,Frank 38% Margaret,Rose,Alice,Dorothy,Helen 41%
 David,Michael,John,Christopher,James 36% Susan,Linda,Karen,Patricia,Deborah 38%
 Liam,Noah,Oliver,Ethan,William 35% Olivia,Emma,Ava,Sophia,Isabella 40%
DDDQDOVLVVKRVKDUDLLRQDO
male names like William and John
dominated in earlier centuries, reecting
patriarchal ideals and biblical inuences
.Female nameslike Elizabeth andMary
U VLPLODUO URR LQ UOLJLRV DQ
cultural symbolism, often signifying
purity and virtue. By the 20th Century,
diversication in naming practices
introduced names such as Margaret
and Rose, with a strong emphasis on
individuality.
Inrecentdecades,unisexnamesand
more exible conventions have gained
popularity.Forexample,theemergenceof
7DORUDQ-RUDQDVJQUQUDOQDPV
represents a shift towards inclusivity.
However,thedatastillshowapreference
for traditionally gendered names, with
FODU LVLQFLRQV EQ PDOV DQ
femalesinpopularchoices.
7K UQVLOOVUDERK FRQLQL
andchange,reectingtheinterplaybetween
traditionandmodernsocietalvalues.
 LVWRLFDO DQ FOWDO
inuences
The evolution of English names is
SO LQULQ LK KLVRULFDO DQ
cultural events that have shaped English
society. FromtheAnglo-Saxonperiodto
themodernera,namingconventionshave
reected societal hierarchies, religious
beliefs, and cultural integration. This
VFLRQ DQDOV KR KLVRULFDO DQ
culturalfactorshaveinuencedgendered
namingpractices.
4.2.1. Anglo-Saxon and Norman
SHLRGV
During the Anglo-Saxon period,
QDPVRQKDPDQLQJVLRUDLVOLN
strength or protection, such as KOU
(“noble counsel”)for malesandEadgifu
(“gift of wealth”) for females. With the
Norman Conquest in 1066, French and
Latinnames,suchasWilliam,Robert,and
Alice,begantodominate,replacingmany
UDLLRQDO QJOR6DRQ QDPV 5DQ
&Wilson,1997;HistoricUK,2024).This

shiftreectedtheculturalassimilationand
feudalhierarchyimposedbytheNormans.
9LWRLDQHD
7K 9LFRULDQ SULR PDUN D
UVUJQF R QDPV L R URDO DQ
biblical signicance. Male names like
OEU DQ (DU VPEROL VUQJK
andnobility,whilefemalenamessuchas
Victoria andElizabeth reected idealsof
purityanddomesticity(Redmonds,2004).
Table2:Thepopularityofcertainnamesduringthisperiod
1DPH HQGHU Culturalinuence 0HDQLQJ
DVVRFLDWLRQ
)UHTHQF
 Notablegures
OEU Male Monarchy,Victorianvalues Nobility,leadership 8% PrinceAlbert(ConsortofQueen
Victoria)
(DU Male Monarchy,tradition Protector,wealth 9% KingEdwardVII
9LFRULD PDO Monarchy,Christianvalues Victory,royalvirtue 7% 4Q9LFRULD
(OLDEK PDO Christianity,tradition OathofGod,purity 10% QueenElizabeth(historicaluse)
UKU Male Literature,chivalricvalues Noble,kingly 5% KingArthur(symbolic)
Mary PDO Christianity,biblicalgures MotherofJesus,grace 12% Commonbiblicalreference
Charles Male Monarchy,leadership Freeman,strength 6% CharlesDickens(author)
OLF PDO Literature,innocence Noble,truth 4% “AliceinWonderland”byLewis
Carroll
George Male Monarchy,militaryvalor Farmer,earth-worker 8% KingGeorgeIV
(PPD PDO Tradition,simplicity Whole,universal 5% CommonVictorianname
0RGHQSHLRG
7KPRUQSULRLQ(QJOLVKQDPLQJ
practices,encompassingthe20thand21st
centuriesreectssignicantsocietalshifts
inuencedbyindividualism,globalization,
and movements toward gender equality.
7KLVUDLVPDUNEKLQUSODEQ
the revival of traditional names and the
emergence of innovative, gender-neutral,
andculturallydiversenamingconventions.
5HLDRWDGLWLRQDQDPHV
Traditional names such as Oliver,
Charlotte, and Henry have regained
popularity during the modern period.
This trend often reects a desire to
UFRQQF LK FOUDO KULDJ DQ
timeless values, especially during
periods of societal uncertainty. For
example, Oliver, consistently ranked
DPRQJ K RS ERV QDPV LQ K
UK since the early 2000s, evokes
VLPSOLFL DQ KLVRULFDO UVRQDQF
(ONS,2024).Similarly,Charlotte,with
URDO FRQQRDLRQV OLQN R 3ULQFVV
Charlotte, has surged in popularity,
ULQRUFLQJUDLLRQDODVVRFLDLRQVLK
eleganceandstability.
Table3:RevivaloftraditionalnamesintheUK(2000-2020)
1DPH 5DQNLQ 5DQNLQ Culturalsignicance
Oliver  Simplicity,historicalresonance
Charlotte  Royalassociation,Victorianera
Henry  Nobility,medievalheritage
4.2.3.2. Emergence of gender-
QHWDQDPHV
7KPRUQUDKDVVQDUDPDLF
rise in the use of gender-neutral names,
reecting shifting societal attitudes
toward inclusivity and non-binary
identities.NameslikeTaylor,Jordan,and
Riley have become increasingly popular,
DSSDOLQJ R SDUQV VNLQJ QDPV KD
transcend traditionalgenderassociations.