Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-scsgl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-25T05:34:41.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proper names in communication1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

A. Sophia  and
S. Marmaridou
A. Sophia
Affiliation:
English Department, University of Athens
S. Marmaridou
Affiliation:
English Department, University of Athens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has long been observed that, although proper names are mainly used to identify individuals uniquely in our universe of discourse, and therefore have a clearly referential function, they are also used connotatively, when, for example, they stand as a shorthand for whatever characteristics a specific individual may at one time have been associated with. These two uses can be illustrated in the following sentences:

(1) Judas was Jesus Christ's disciple who betrayed Him.

(2) Every great man nowadays has his disciples, but it is always Judas who writes the biography (Jespersen, 1965: 66).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , September 1989 , pp. 355 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allerton, D. J. (1987). The linguistic and sociolinguistic Status of proper names. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. M. (1983). Toward a functional theory of names and naming. Linguistics 21. 341–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, K. (1971). Reference and definite descriptions. In Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 100–114.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1949). On sense and nominatum. In Feigl, H. & Sellars, W. (eds) Readings in philosophical analysis. New York: Appleton Century Crofts. 85–102.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1965). The philosophy of grammar. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. F. (1972). Naming and necessity. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds) Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel. 253–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, A. S. S. (1982). Diktes anaphoras sti Neoelliniki onomatiki phrasi. Studies in Greek Linguistics 3. 177–192.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, A. S. S. (1984). The study of reference attribution and genericness in the context of English and their grammaticalization in M. Greek noun phrases. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. (1956 [1843]). A system of logic. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1912). The problems of philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1958). Proper names. Mind 67. 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ziff, P. (1960). Semantic analysis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ziff, P. (1977). About proper names. Mind 86. 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar