Abstract
The author discusses the ways Roms are labeled in different discourses, especially in the Czech and Slovak contexts. He suggests this labeling is rooted in the dynamics and a wide context, which is reflected in all segments of the communicative situation:
1) The named object itself is not self-evident: speakers referring to the Romani/Gypsy population do not even agree on who should be included under the chosen term.
2) The author admits that the choice of a particular term is not self-evident.
3) The choice of the language code is not self-evident too.
4) What is not self-evident is also the situation of the speech act, its context, and stylistic level, the relation between the speaker and the addressee, and even the ethnicity (or supposed ethnicity) of the speaker and the addressee and even of the secondary addressees as well as witnesses of the speech act. Emic labelling can be also seen as the usage of terms by Romani representations, which is an approach often ignored by other Romani studies scholars. Červenka demonstrates that already since 1970's the majority term Rom widely dominates in the names and declarations by Romani organizations.
5) All of the abovementioned standpoints are observed as changing in time.
6) The change in the context of labelling the Roms is followed not only in time. The author goes on to show the assymetry of contexts of different national languages. Červenka warns against the mechanical identification and translation of the English term Gypsy using always the Czech term Cikán and Slovak Cigán (as well as against such usage of the term Rom/Róm) and recommends the loosening of strong ties between seemingly unproblematic translation equivalents. .