Reflection: Proper nouns and meaning

Whether one agrees that proper nouns work through associated descriptive content or not (and this is indeed controversial), there is no doubt that proper nouns are not the purest of referring expressions. They are not devoid of all abstract semantic meaning; they have rich connotations, with the line between connotative and denotative sense being fuzzy. Kasof (1993: 140), having reviewed a vast quantity of research (most of it North American) and conducted studies of his own, concludes that both first names and surnames “differ in attractiveness and connote impressions of the name bearer’s age, intellectual competence, race, ethnicity, social class, and other attributes”. It is not difficult to understand how these different associations have developed: at different times different names have been fashionable, and different social groups have preferred particular names. For example, the names Kevin and Tracey, though popular in the mid-eighties, have experienced rapid decline (see figures in Dunkling 1995), presumably because they became strongly associated with the young, moneyed, working class people of late Thatcherite Britain.

While some scholars (e.g. Kripke 1972) may argue, with some reason, against the descriptive content view, saying that proper nouns directly refer without any mediating semantic content, proper nouns clearly do have connotations that assist not only in the assignment of reference in context but also in the overall interpretation. For example, a tutor, writing to summon an elusive student, may sign the communication Jonathan Culpeper as opposed to Jonathan, in order to crank up the level of formality and thus strengthen the request/order.

The general and important point here, that each proper noun has its own semantic colouring which feeds into interpretive processes in interaction, is true of all referring expressions. Also, it is important to note that no one proper noun form is necessarily performing a referring function all the time. For example, Mick may be thought of as a proper noun (a popular short form of Michael), but it is a common noun in this sentence: “When he first came in I offered him a drink out of courtesy and I think he thought I was taking the mick out of his drinking in the past” (BNC AT1 1224; part of a biography).3 Indeed, proper nouns evolving into common nouns (so-called eponyms) is a regular method of word-formation.