English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The phrase naming names arises often during the reporting of corruption investigations, political scandals or the like. The word naming is defined as citing by name or giving a name to. I could not think of any similarly redundant phrase for comparison.

Is this phrase merely an alliterative embellishment, or does it say more than a replacement phrase such as naming of implicated individuals would imply?

share|improve this question
See Strunk&White Rule #4: Place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause. – tchrist Mar 28 '13 at 16:43
I think the most common context is when people say things like "I don't want to name names, but we all know there's corruption afoot". Which is just a florid/idiomatic way of saying "I don't want to name anybody [that I know/suspect to be guilty]". A matter of style, rather than some subtle nuance of meaning. – FumbleFingers Mar 28 '13 at 16:54
To expand a bit on FF's comment, this is just one example of how the language can be used in creative not-exactly-perfectly-correct-but-not-really-incorrect-either ways that are colorful, evocative, and efficient. Moreover, this usage adds a nice implication that the speaker just might be privy to inside information, and that the listener is privileged to receive this special information in a semi-confidential way. – John M. Landsberg Mar 29 '13 at 2:54

Macmillan agrees with your supposition that naming names means naming of implicated individuals:

name names

to state publicly the names of people involved in something dishonest or illegal

Other sources note that name names is an idiom; you can play the same game with other words, but the resulting phrases would be more literal in meaning:

  • link links (link hyperlinks, naturally)
  • game games (rig or otherwise cheat at games)
  • like likes (enjoy your accumulated upvotes on Facebook)

There are many other such examples.

share|improve this answer
On the other hand, "I am now going to name names: X, Y and Z" isn't as likely to end one up in a libel case. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 28 '13 at 17:07
@EdwinAshworth That's sense 4 in the definition that I cited. – Gnawme Mar 28 '13 at 17:30

Some verbs (in at least some of their senses) take (perhaps only) objects that are etymologically related to the verb: cognate objects.

cognate object (noun) [Grammar]: a substantive functioning as the object of a verb, especially of a verb that is usually intransitive, when both object and verb are derived from the same root.

( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognate+object )

Thus you can only dream - a dream. You can dance a dance or sing a song, but here hyponymous objects are also possible - dance a tango; sing a lullaby. Sing a song sounds a lot better than dance a dance, of course, but it's just a matter of prosody. Variants on naming names don't sound too bad nowadays because they've become accepted usages. Of course, name, unlike dream or dance, is transitive.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.