The study of Proper nouns in the world linguistics

The study of Proper nouns in the world linguistics

The various features of proper nouns in the language have been attracting the attention of linguistics in every period of language development. Ancient Greek scholars such as Aristotle, Democritus, and Heraclitus also commented on the characteristics of proper nouns. Including, in Poetics, Aristotle considers Proper noun to be one of the parts of speech and describes it as follows: "A proper noun is a complex, meaningful word that does not mean tense, and its parts do not mean anything by themselves."[1] Julius Pollux, who lived in the 1st century BC, created a dictionary of proper nouns called “Onomastics”. The Stoics, including Chrysippus, classified proper nouns as a separate linguistic unit, a group of words. During the Renaissance and the Middle Ages (T. Gobs, J. Locke, G. Leibniz) and throughout the nineteenth century (J. Mill, H. Joseph, etc.), the debate over proper nouns and their place in the lexical layer of language continued. The most important issue in this area was to determine what proper nouns meant. During the 18th and 19th centuries, this problem was studied not only by linguists, but also by philosophers, logicians. The great English logician John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) put a lot of effort into studying this problem. According to his interpretation, proper nouns do not make sense, they help to know the object as distinctive signs, labels, to distinguish it from other objects. An object, a person's name (nickname) cannot be a complete basis for a description of that object or person. Developing his ideas, J.Mill divides words into two groups: a) word-signs, b) characterizing (connotative) words. Connotative words came after the proper nouns.[2]

Another English logician, H. Joseph, had expressed contradictory views to J. Mill about famous horses. In his view, famous horses have a broader and more meaningful meaning than related horses. For example, the phrase "Palikur (man's name, the companion of the legendary Aeneas) was ignored" is much more meaningful than the phrase "Man was ignored."

In the twentieth century, the logical direction of proper nouns was further developed by the famous English philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). In his view, the meaning expressed by proper nouns in a particular place and time is more precise and scientific than that of common nouns. Proper in this respect are very close to demonstrative pronouns like this, that.[3]

The Danish linguist Paul Christophersen sees the difference between proper nouns and common nouns in the fact that the former expresses a definite, concrete meaning, and the latter an abstract meaning. Proper nouns are direct names of individuals, while common nouns are indirect names. Common nouns first mean the name of a whole group, and then the name is concretized.

The English linguist Alan Gardiner's Theory of proper nouns (1954) took the science of onomastics to a new level. Developing J. Mill's idea that proper nouns have no meaning, A. Gardiner writes that proper nouns are unique names that express a clear, concrete set of ideas about an object, an event.

In this regard, famous horses are divided into two types: a) embodied proper nouns, b) disembodied proper nouns. For example, proper nouns such as William Shakespeare and the River Thames belong to the group of proper nouns that are embodied because they give a general, holistic idea of a particular person (here the great playwright) and the geographical object (here the river). If we simply say William, it means an disembodied proper noun that is incoherent, giving a general idea of a person’s name. From a historical point of view, embodied proper nouns appeared in the past. For example, anthroponyms such as Amir Temur, Mirzo Ulugbek, Alisher Navoi, Zahiriddin Muhammad Babur belong to the group of embodied proper nouns, according to this theory, because they embody the symbols of famous people who played a significant role in the history and culture of our statehood. Anthroponyms such as Temur, Temurbek, Ulugbek, Alisher, Bobur, whose parents dreamed of making their children look like such celebrities, are included disembodied proper nouns.

Well-known linguist MI Steblin-Kamensky, studying the onomastic lexicon from the point of view of embodiment on the basis of the materials of ancient Icelandic literature, notes that there was no phenomenon of "embodiment" in the onomastic lexicon used in Icelandic literature. In his opinion, any proper noun has always expressed a certain denotation, meaning.[4]

The theory of the "embodiment" of proper nouns, developed by T. Gobbs at his time, was later further improved by G. Leibniz. According to the German philosopher G. Leibniz, proper nouns contain concrete and abstract elements of thinking. This view of the scholar is important from the point of view of treating proper nouns in language (in the system of definite elements of communication) and in speech (in the use of these elements from a communicative point of view). [5]Due to such views, an approach to proper nouns in linguistics from an abstract-logical and concrete-historical point of view has emerged.

The scientific view that there was no element of meaning in the proper nouns founded by J.Mill in his time was later developed by well-known linguists such as V.Bryondal, E.Boyssensom, L.Elmslev. As a result, some scholars, including Danish linguist Knud Togebyu, are synonymous with the fact that proper nouns (including pronouns) have no semantic meaning. Accordingly, a single individual can have several names, and several individuals can have a common name (names, surnames: Abdulla Aripov, Erkin Vohidov, Botir Zokirov, Erkin Yusupov, etc. We do not know, there are other people we do not know). There are also opposites to this idea, proper nouns are words and have different characteristics, just like common nouns. Such a view was once based on the Stoic philosophers, and later developed in the 19th century by scholars such as H. Joseph, J. Mill, and in the twentieth century by O. Espersen. For example, the Danish scientist O. Espersen noted that “Proper nouns have more characteristics than Common nouns. Proper nouns express mare connotative meanings”[6]

In the 60s and 70s of the twentieth century, the famous Russian linguist AV Superanskaya was particularly interested in the history of the study of PNs in linguistics (especially in foreign linguistics) and published a major study entitled "General Theory of Proper Nouns"[7] Then VA Nikonov's "Name and Society" (1974), V.A Karpenko's "Theoretical Foundations of Distinguishing Proper and Common Nouns" (1975), A.D. Zverev's "On proper and common nouns" (1976), II Kovalik's "Proper and Common Nouns in the Ukrainian language" (1977) was published, a separate scientific collection "Proper and Common nouns" was published (1978).

Well-known scientist A.A. Reformatsky once proposed to distinguish Proper and common nouns as follows: Proper nouns primarily have a nominative function, that is, they serve to name certain objects, events, and common nouns perform a semantic, expressive function, that is, they name objects, events, as well as the concept of them.[8]

This problem is still of interest to linguists, philosophers and other scientists. For example, in 1978, the International Onomastic Congress of the USSR in Krakow was dedicated to the problem of "common nouns and proper nouns." The XU International Onomastic Congress held in Leipzig in 1984 discussed the sociolinguistic study of Proper nouns.[9]

In 1973, a monograph entitled "Essays on the General Theory of Proper nouns" by Evgeny Grodzinski, a great specialist in the philosophy of language, was published. In this work, E. Grodzinski divides PN into the following three groups: a) single-design nouns (designation - the object represented by the word, denotation) or ideal nouns; b) multi-designation Proper nouns; c) Proper Nouns that are empty, or have no designation (non-existent objects, Proper nouns of mythological imagery).

Commenting on the theory put forward by Mill and his supporters that Proper nouns do not express meaning and connotation, E. Grodzinski seeks to substantiate the idea that Proper nouns also have a meaning, an event, a design.

In general, there are many problems in linguistics that need to be solved in the field of studying the general problems of proper nouns. This will require further research on onomastics in the future

References:

1