European International Journal of Philological Sciences
63
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
63-70
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
25 April 2025
ACCEPTED
21 May 2025
PUBLISHED
23 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 06 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Proper Name as A
Language Category
Koziyeva Iqbol Komiljonovna
Lecturer of the Department of Russian language and literature at the
Faculty of Philology of Bukhara State University, Uzbekistan
Abstract
: This article provides information about the
linguistic field of onomastics and the anthroponyms
included in it. The article describes in detail the gradual
study of proper names by scientists and their work on
anthroponyms. The article describes the research of not
only Russian, but also world linguists in this field.Proper
use of the form of one's own name, knowledge of a
foreign language and familiarity with foreign cultural
models of personal names are among the most
important conditions for the success of the intercultural
communication process. Many issues related to the
functioning of personal names have been addressed by
various disciplines. Anthroponyms are of great
importance in people's lives. They reflect the culture
and worldview of the society.
Keywords:
Proper names, anthroponyms, onomastics,
vocabulary,
dialectal
anthroponyms,
accepted
anthroponyms.
Introduction:
Proper names have already attracted the
attention of ancient Egyptian, ancient Greek and ancient
Roman scientists. They were identified as a special class
of words by the Stoics (in particular, by Chrysippus), but
even later
—
in the Renaissance, in modern times (T.
Hobbes, J. Locke, G. Leibniz), throughout the 19th
century (J. St. Mill, H. Joseph, etc.), the discussion about
them continued, in the course of which many
unambiguous (accepted by many scientists) and
completely opposite judgments were expressed.
Literature review
The most difficult task turned out to be to determine the
peculiarity of the meaning of a proper name. In the last
century, this problem was perceived not so much as a
linguistic one, but as a logical one, so its researchers
were mainly logicians and philosophers. The great
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
64
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
English logician John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) devoted
much effort to its resolution. He came to the
conclusion that proper names have no meaning, they
are peculiar labels, or marks (like a cross) that help to
recognize objects and distinguish them from each
other. The characteristic of the named thing is not
associated with the name-label, they do not "connote"
(do not designate, do not describe it), but only
"denote" or name it. "Proper names do not connote
anything and, strictly speaking, have no meaning"?.
Logically developing his idea of tag words and words
capable of characterizing (connoting), Mill suggested
that "connoting names appeared after proper names"
Another English logician X. Joseph, disagreeing with
Mill, who rejected proper names in semantics,
expressed the opposite opinion: he not only allowed
the proper name to have a meaning, but found that "a
proper name has even more meaning than a common
name," for example, in the phrase Chalicurus
overboard (companion of Aeneas) compared to the
expression "The man is overboard!" In the 20th
century, the logical concept of proper names was
developed by the famous English logician and
philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). In his
opinion, everything that is designated in space-time by
proper names can well be designated using a
coordinate system, and it is designated more precisely,
more scientifically. But for everyday, to a certain
extent "primitive" communication, proper names are
more convenient, and this justifies their existence in
the language. B. Russell noticed a certain similarity of
his own name with the demonstrative pronouns this,
that, this.
Danish linguist Paul Kristoffersen saw the difference
between common and proper names in the fact that
the former are abstract, the latter are concrete. A
proper name is a direct name of an individual, a
common name is an indirect name. The common noun
first names the class that the individual belongs to, and
only then
—
the individual. The concreteness of a
proper name should not be put in direct connection
with the uniqueness of the subject. Uniqueness
entitles an object to its own name. However, the same
name may well serve as a designation for several
objects. It is only important that they are all thought of
as individual. So, the names Sergey and Tatiana are
currently called by hundreds of thousands of men and
women, remaining individual designations for each of
them. An important milestone in the study of proper
names was the work of the English linguist Alan G
Ardiner "Theory of proper names" (1954).
Accepting Mill's main thesis about the absence of
proper names, A. Gardiner clarifies and develops his
interpretation. "A proper name is a word or group of
words whose specific purpose is recognized as
identification and which fulfill, or tend to fulfill, this
purpose solely by means of a distinctive sound (the
sound appearance of the word.
—
In . B.), regardless of
any meaning inherent in this sound from the very
beginning or acquired by it as a result of association with
an object or objects identified through this sound"
Gardiner's idea of "embodied" and "once-embodied"
proper names is interesting. Embodied, or "corporeal",
are names attached to certain persons, places, etc.
(such as William Shakespeare, the River Thames),
Disembodied, or "disembodied", are the same name
words, but considered outside of connection with
specific persons or topographical objects (William as a
personal name in general for example, in the dictionary
of English anthroponyms). Historically, "embodied"
names are primary. Their "disincarnation" occurred
later. According to the Soviet linguist M. I. Steblin-
Kamensky, who approached the analysis of the history
of onomastic vocabulary from the perspective of "more
or less "incarnation" of proper names in the language of
a particular epoch" (based on the material of Icelandic
literature), "the existence of "disembodied" proper
names is a relatively new phenomenon characteristic of
modern European languages. In Old Norse, there
seemed to be no "disembodied" proper names at all.
Every proper name has always implied a certain
denotation."
The question of the "embodiment" ("corporeality") and
"disembodied" ("disembodied") of names (dating back
to the teachings of T. Hobbes on the names of individual
objects and names common to many things, as well as
G. Leibniz
—
on the relationship of concrete and
abstract in thinking and language) is extremely
important for the development of the problem under
discussion both in general theoretical and historical
terms. It deserves close consideration in connection
with the analysis of the essence and functions of a
proper name in language (in the system of sign units of
communication) and in speech (in the communicative
application of these units) 8 *, as well as in connection
with the need to characterize proper names, their
categories and properties not from abstract logical, but
from concrete- historical positions.
J. Mill's thesis that "a proper name has absolutely no
meaning," supported by linguists V. Brendal, E.
Boyseens, L. Elmslev and a number of other scientists,
led the modern Danish linguist Knud Togebuto the
conclusion that proper names (as well as pronouns),
being devoid of semantic content (they are with the
"zero root"), they are synonyms. This circumstance, in
his opinion, is the reason that one individual can have
several different names, and several individuals can
have the same name (namesakes, namesakes).
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
65
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
The opposite view of a proper name as words with a
greater meaning than common ones, expressed by the
ancient Greek Stoic philosophers and supported in the
19th century by H. Joseph, a contemporary of J. St. Mill,
was defended in the 20th century by O. Jespersen, M.
Breal, and others. So, O. Jespersen wrote: "... proper
names have a large number of features, not common
names. Using Mill's terminology, but completely at
odds with his point of view, I dare say that proper
names (as they are actually used) "connote" the largest
number of signs." 8 The remark about "real usage" is
not accidental here. Jespersen means the speech
meaning, not the (linguistic!) meaning that J. S. Mill
and his numerous followers analyzed. "Mill and his
followers paid too much attention to what could be
called the dictionary meaning of a name, and very little
attention to its contextual meaning in the particular
situation in which it is pronounced or written." 10. We
will not describe the opinions of other scientists who
have written about proper names, but in order to
summarize, we will give the final formulation of the
famous Soviet linguist who studies various problems of
onomastics, A.V. Suranskaya, who specifically dealt
with the history of the study of proper names (mainly
in foreign science). "The lack of a single, generally
accepted concept of a proper name is largely due to
the difference in the initial positions and methods of
their creators, as well as the fact that searches were
sometimes conducted in diametrically opposite
directions. Hence the pairwise opposite theories based
on the connection of a proper name with a concept
and a named object."
The fact that the problem under discussion is of
interest to linguists and especially onomatologists all
over the world is evidenced by its nomination as the
main topic of the XIII International Onomastic Congress
—
"Common names and Proper names", held in
Krakow in 1978. In 1973, the work of Yevg. G
Rodzinsky, a specialist in the philosophy of language,
"An Essay on the general theory of proper Names" was
published, in which the author set out to "show the
true place of proper names in the language, determine
their specific properties and relation to other
categories of expressions, and also try to establish the
ways that led to the emergence of proper names as a
special language category". The main issues of the
theory of proper names are solved by the author
traditionally, however, a number of his observations,
clarifications, interpretations, and terms deserve
attention.
Among proper names, E. Grodzinsky distinguishes: 1)
monodesignate (a designation is an object designated
by a word, the same as a denotation, signified), or
ideal, proper names, 2) mnogodesignate (with a large
number of carriers) and 3) empty
—
having no
designations (for example, the names of mythological
characters that never really existed).
The author argues with the point of view of J. S. Mill and
his supporters, who deny proper names both meaning
and connotation. The meaning of a word (both common
and proper) is considered to be the thought experienced
by the speaker when using a word meaning an object. E.
Grod-Zinsky notes that with a common word, the
thought of an object encompasses "only such properties
of this object that any other cognate of this common
name also possesses (and it can be all general properties
or only a part of them); the meaning of a proper name
is a thought about the object designated by this name,
which encompasses all the most important properties of
this object known to the speaker." If a common word
does not cover "strictly individual properties," then the
meaning of a proper name (including a multi-signified
one) includes them. "When we talk about a Yang that
we know, the meaning that we attach to our own name
"Yang" also covers the individual properties of this Yang,
and not just the properties possessed by all persons
bearing the name Yang." In this reasoning, it is not
difficult to see the concept of the "greater significance"
of O. Jespersen, M. Breal and other linguists.
E. Grodzinsky's considerations on the difference
between proper names and individual descriptions
(descriptions, designations) are interesting. "The proper
name of any object can be replaced
—
without changing
the designation
—
by any other proper name. For
example, the proper name Persia was replaced by the
name Iran, the proper name Siam by the name Thailand,
and the famous French writer Aurora Dudevant
replaced her feminine name with the masculine name
Georges Sandu, and all these substitutions were
approved by the linguistic community at various times."
Individual descriptions (descriptions, designations) do
not replace one another, as they designate different
objects in view of their uniqueness. From this thesis, it
is concluded that names like "The United States of North
America and the Baltic Sea are not proper names, but
individual descriptions (since they cannot be replaced
without losing their designations, for example, by the
names of the United States of South America, the Baltic
Coast)*. The author objects to the widespread
interpretation of "any single name that serves to
permanently designate a given object as the proper
name of that object." At the same time, it allows for the
transformation of individual descriptions of the subject
into proper names. The general concept of the origin of
proper names from common nouns, as well as specific
examples of the formation of proper names, is quite
consistent with this... "The name Leo became a proper
name only when it lost all connection with the idea of a
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
66
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
lion. Originally, the name of Warsaw Warshowa was an
abbreviated description of "the village of Warshowa",
i.e. "the village belonging to Warsaw". This name
became a proper name when Warsaw ceased to
belong to Warsaw."
In the seventies, several theoretical works by Soviet
onomatologists appeared. First of all, these are the
books by A. A. Beletsky "Lexicology and Theory of
Linguistics
(Onomastics)"
(Kiev,
1972),
A.V.
Superanskaya "General Theory of proper names"
(Moscow, 1973), V. A. N. I. konov "Name and Society"
(Moscow, 1974). At the specified time, articles and
works by Yu.A. Karpenko "Theoretical foundations of
the differentiation of proper and common names"
(Movoznavstvo, 1975, No. 4), "On proper and common
names" (1976), I. I. Karpenko were published. K o v a l
I k a "On proper and common names in the Ukrainian
language" (1977), the collection "Common and Proper
Names" (1978) was published, and studies devoted to
theoretical issues of anthroponymy, toponymy,
cosmonymy, and cinematonymy appeared. Let's
consider the main provisions of some of these works.
A. A. Beletsky sees the main difference between
proper and common names not in their structural and
linguistic terms, but in their function. "The difference
between proper and common names," he writes, "lies
not in morphology or semantics, but in the use, usage,
and function of both lexical classes... With regard to
their functions, proper names could be called
individualizers, and common names could be called
classifiers." Proper names differ from non-proper ones
in their "correlation" with concepts... and with discrete
objects of reality."
A. V. Superanskaya, concluding in her book the
consideration of her own name and the teachings
about it, names three distinctive features that, in her
opinion, make it possible to distinguish between
proper names and common names: "The main
distinguishing features of a proper name are that: 1) it
is given to an individual object, and not to a class of
objects having a feature characteristic of all individuals
belonging to this class; 2) an object referred to by its
proper name is always clearly defined, delimited, and
outlined.; 3) the name is not directly related to the
concept and does not have a clear and unambiguous
connotation at the language level." In a later article
"Appellative
—
onoma",
A.V.
Superanskaya
concretizes the differences between proper names
and different types of improper names, considering
the specifics of their basic properties. For words of
general vocabulary, the main properties are
—
according to the author of the article
—
the connection
with the concept, the relationship with the class of
objects, the absence of a direct connection with a
specific object. For nomen words (from Latin. On the
contrary, they are characterized by: a weakened
connection with the concept, the designation of a class
of objects, a close connection with the named object,
which constitutes the infima species of logical division.
"The main property of proper names is the lack of
connection with a concept, a close connection with a
single specific object."
B. A. Nikonov considers it important to pay attention to
the patterns of proper names development: "A name is
a word and, like all words, obeys the laws of language,
i.e. it is subject to linguistics... But proper names form a
special subsystem in the language, in which general
linguistic laws are specifically refracted, and their own
patterns arise that do not exist in a language outside of
it." V. A. Nikonov especially insistently emphasizes the
sociality of proper names, their historical conditionality.
"Personal names," the researcher writes, "exist only in
society and for society, and it inexorably dictates their
choice, no matter how individual it may seem. Personal
names are always social.". The social nature of the name
is associated with such a property as the "introduction
to the series." "The current notion that a name serves
as entertainment needs at least a serious correction: it
not only divides, but also introduces a number. The
name connects the bearer with other bearers of the
same name and with the group of society in which it is
accepted",
—
notes V. A. Nikonov.
The Ukrainian onomatologist Y. A. Karpenko focused on
the essential and functional difference between proper
and common names, as well as on their linguistic
features. To him, only a functional approach to the
problem does not seem sufficient and reliable, in
particular, the unconditional recognition of the
functions
of
generalization
(classification,
generalization) for common names, and the functions of
individualization for proper names (not only proper
words can be individualized, but also common words).
In addition, a function is not an entity, but only its
manifestation. The researcher believes that the
functional differences between proper names and
common names are undeniable, but they do not follow
the line of generalization-individualization, but rather
the line of separation-unification: "proper names
separate homogeneous objects, and common names
unite them." .Y. A. Karpenko suggests calling the
function of proper names differential, and common
names classification. (Most often, especially in
toponyms and anthroponyms, the differential function
appears in the form of addressability. In general, the
author stands in terms of the semi-functionality of
proper names (as well as common names), finding
identifying, aesthetic and a number of other functions in
them. The differentiation of essence and function
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
67
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
actually boils down to the differentiation of the
position of a proper name in language and speech. The
linguistic essence of a word is embodied in its speech
function. The main criterion for separating proper and
non
—
proper names is as follows: the name of one
object is a proper name, the name of a number of
homogeneous objects is a common name. In thinking,
a common word corresponds to a concept (although its
meaning is not equal to a concept), a proper name
corresponds to a representation (usually a single one).
In general, Y. A. Karpenko comes to the formulation
(and terminology) proposed by the famous Soviet
linguist A. A. Reformatsky: proper names primarily
perform the nominative function (from Latin.
nominativus
—
"nominal") function
—
certain objects
are called, common names
—
semasiological (from the
Greek semasi a
—
"designation" and 1ogos
—
"word",
"teaching")
—
they not only name, but also express the
concept of the subject
METHODOLOGY
In studying the various aspects of a proper name,
researchers are unanimous in the following
statements:
1. Proper names.They are units of language, most
often words, and therefore should be considered as a
completely legitimate object of linguistics; the analysis
of proper names from philosophical, logical,
psychological and other positions does not replace
their linguistic characteristics, which are better able to
express their linguistic essence than others.
2. Proper names belong to nominative rather than
communicative units of language and are included in
the class of specific nouns (or substantives) in most
languages of the world.
3. The specificity of a proper name is noticeable both
at the language level
—
when considering them "in
general", outside of specific usage, and at the speech
level
—
in specific contexts and situations
(constitutions).
4. The specificity of a proper name concerns both its
structural and linguistic side and its functional one. 5.
Structurally and linguistically, the specificity of a
proper name usually makes itself felt in the field of
semantics (therefore, many scientists consider a
proper name to be a lexical rather than a lexico-
grammatical, and even more so not a grammatical
category) and to a lesser extent in the field of
morphology (including word formation) and syntax.
6. Attention to the functional side of proper names
made it possible to identify the following essential
functions peculiar to them (only to them or both to
them and to common names): nominative, identifying,
differentiating. The following functions (classified as
"additional", "cultural", "derivatives" of the main ones
or as "passive", etc.) are called: social, emotional,
accumulative, deictic (indicative), the function of
"introduction to the series", targeted, expressive,
aesthetic, stylistic.
7. The researchers tried to find one leading feature,
according to which, as it seemed to them, there is a
separation of common and proper names. Is there such
a feature? The answer to this question can only be given
by a comprehensive study of proper names, in
particular, an analysis of the features that combine
them with common nouns, as well as with other parts of
speech, i.e. with all common nouns (especially
pronominal, interjective, and other words), and
especially those features that distinguish and
differentiate them from common nouns.
RESULTS
The concepts outlined above do not exhaust, of course,
the entire range of issues related to clarifying the
specifics of a proper name. Researchers have noticed
many other features that characterize a proper name to
a greater or lesser extent. Leaving aside the minor
features, as well as those that are characteristic of
proper names of individual languages (for example, only
Russian or related Slavic and other Indo
—
European
languages, as opposed to non-systemic languages -
Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Iberian-Caucasian, etc. In addition
to those discussed above, we should mention such, in
our opinion, important features of proper names as:
a) their genetic secondary nature in comparison with
common nouns (most proper names are derived from
common nouns); b) their functional secondary nature (a
proper name is always the second, usually more specific
name of an object that has already been named
"before" by a common word); c) their structural and
linguistic (lexico-semantic, as well as grammatical) and
functional specialization; d) the somewhat peculiar
position of onomastic units (words and other linguistic
signs functionally similar to onyms) in the language:
they cannot be attributed to the same lexical tier of the
language* since their originality is also manifested in
grammar and phonetics (although weaker than in
semantics); e) a slightly different embodiment Proper
names include such linguistic phenomena as ambiguity,
homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, variation, and some
others.; f) their statistical (quantitative and frequency)
pattern of use is different from the appellatives
(common names), as well as, apparently, a different
distribution by functional styles (there are quite
numerous types of texts that do not use proper names
at all, i.e. constructed from the same appellative units,
and there are few types of texts composed of the same
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
68
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
proper names).
The most difficult and controversial issues turned out
to be the presence or absence of a proper lexical
meaning for a name (already concepts, more broadly
information), its nature (whether it is meaningful or
purely formal), its "volume" in comparison with the
semantics of common words, its nature (linguistic,
speech, logical, psychological, etc.) onomastic
meaning, the degree of opposition of proper names to
common names (in terms of meaning and other
indicators). Correctly noting the specifics of the proper
name in its meaning, researchers differ in its
interpretation. Some see the specifics in the
weakening, or "reduction", of meaning, or even in its
complete absence (hence the qualification of onyms as
empty signs, labels, labels and comparing them with
balls (differing only in their external coloring with the
similarity of their "voids"), with numerical and
symbolic signs). Others find the specificity of proper
names in the "hypertrophied nominativeness" and in
their special concreteness due to it. Such a discrepancy
of views indicates, on the one hand, the real
complexity and "diversity" of proper names, on the
other hand, that the meaning (semantics) of a proper
name means different things, moreover, seen from
different points of view.
Most often, the "semantics" of a proper name is taken
to be its structural and linguistic content. Comparing it
with the abstract-structural (actually linguistic),
conceptual content of the appellatives, it is found that
the semantics of the proper name is poorer due to the
unequal representation of the conceptual principle in
it (cf. the river - 1 is a constant water stream of
considerable size’ and the Don —
‘one of the rivers in
the European part of the SSR7, a man
—
‘a living being
with the gift of thinking and speech, capable of
creating tools and using them’ and John —
‘one of the
people, one of the men, etc.'). In other cases, the
semantics of a proper name is judged by its specific
verbal use, in which there is an extremely "bodily"
perception of the so-called objects of reality. For
example, Elbrus (Russian folk Shat-mountain) is not an
abstract mountain, but first of all one of the specific
mountains of the Caucasus, having a certain height
(5630 m above sea level), configuration (two peaks).
Cf.: "And I mean the jagged chains of endless Siliceous
mountains, And the Shat rises beyond them With two
snow heads" (M. Y. Lermontov).
In a certain connection with the approach and
qualification of the semantics of a proper name, only
from the standpoint of language or speech, there is an
emphasis on the conceptuality of common nouns and
the non-conceptuality of proper names. Common
words are classifiers ("unifiers", "generalizers"), proper
words
are
differentiators
("disconnectors",
individuators). Common nouns denote an object
"through a concept," proper nouns denote it through
the direct correlation of the name with the object. In
recent theoretical works (Y. A. Karpenko, V. Blanara,
A.V. Superanskaya, etc.), there is a desire to more
clearly distinguish the definitions of onomastics, taking
into account the opposition of "language" and "speech".
Undoubtedly, a more rigorous and consistent
description of linguistic entities and their functional-
speech implementations is advisable. However, the
dismemberment of onomastic, as well as other
linguistic, categories in order to describe them
separately and terminologically without further
combining and characterizing them as integral
phenomena of linguistic reality cannot be the ultimate
task of research. It seems that in the future (and, if
possible, even now) definitions of onomastic units and
their aggregates should include the total results of their
study in language, speech and all other aspects.
The opposite concepts of a proper name arose due to
the
one-sidedness
of
the
approach
to
its
characterization. For some, proper names turned out to
be only identifying labels ("crosses", "scratches"), and
this happened due to complete inattention to their real
(speech) life, for others, words with overloaded
semantics (including all encyclopedic information or all
"my" information about their speakers) - according to
This is due to a complete lack of attention to their
linguistic status, i.e. to their place and meaning in
language as a communicative and sign system. The
concept
of
antisemanticism
(complete
misunderstanding) of a proper name ignores the fact
that the named and especially named object is always,
albeit with varying degrees of distinctness, correlated
with other objects of this type, as well as with other
types of similar and dissimilar objects. This is one of the
manifestations of the cognitive classification activity of
a thinking person and the real embodiment of the
accumulative function (in the sense of storing
knowledge,
human
experience)
of
language.
Leningrad... It's a city. It stands in the same classification
row with other cities
—
Moscow, Kiev, Minsk, Odessa,
etc. Mikhailovskoye... It is located in another, "rural"
row
—
Trigorskoye, Boldino, Karabakha, Ternovka,
Lipovka.
In the concept of the maximum significance of onyms,
the actual linguistic meaning is replaced by an
encyclopedic meaning, or information about the named
subject. Meanwhile, these are two different types of
word meanings, which was written about in the last
century by the remarkable Russian philologist A. A.
Potebnya, who proposed the term "the closest meaning
of the word" for the linguistic meaning, and "the further
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
69
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
meaning of the word" for the encyclopedic meaning.
"What is the meaning of a word? Obviously, linguistics,
without shying away from achieving its goals, considers
the meaning of words only up to a certain limit. Since
it is said about all kinds of things, without the
aforementioned limitation, linguistics would contain,
in addition to its indisputable content, which no other
science judges, the content of all other sciences... But
the fact is that the meaning of a word generally means
two different words, of which one, which is subject to
linguistics, is called the closest, the other, which is the
subject of other sciences, is the meaning of words.
Only one immediate meaning makes up the actual
content of thought during the utterance of the word "
*•", of course, lexicology as the science of words and
onomastics as the study of anthroponyms, toponyms,
cosmonyms, etc. they cannot deal with the designated
subjects and all the encyclopedic (complete,
comprehensive) information about them. Our
contemporary, the Soviet Slavist N. I. Tolstoy, also
points out the inadmissibility of mixing information
and meaning: "A proper name carries some
information ("content") that is not the same for
everyone, which should not be confused with meaning
(semantics)."
Despite the apparent contrast between the concepts
of the minimum and maximum importance of a proper
name, it is easy to see a common feature in them
—
the denial of the generalizing role of proper names. In
the first case, they are denied the existence of a
concept directly (and generalization, as is well known,
is based on the concept), in the other
—
indirectly,
through excessive "burdening" of their meaning with a
specific image of the object. Meanwhile, the meaning
of proper names as units of language (most often
words) is as complex and dialectical as the meaning of
common words. And V. I. Lenin's famous remark that
"every word (speech) already generalizes" applies to
proper names In modern word theory, it is recognized
that the meaning of a word is its content, which is
approximately equally understood by both the speaker
and the listener and includes three types of
relationships.: 1) denotative (the relation of the
meaning of a word to a subject: from Latin. denotatare
—
"to distinguish, to designate"), 2) significant
(relation to the concept, Latin. significare
—
"to
discover, to give, to know"), 3) structural (the relation
of the meaning of a word, as well as the whole word to
other words of a given language).
A proper name, being a unit of language
—
a word or a
functionally similar phrase, has all these types of
relations
—
denotative, significant and structurally
linguistic, however, their quality in a proper name is
somewhat peculiar compared to the corresponding
components of the meaning of common words, which
provides proper names with linguistic and speech
specificity and unites them into a special a subsystem
within the general lexical and semantic system of the
language. We find a remark about the nominative,
significant, and structural-linguistic specifics of proper
names in the works of L. A. Bulakhovsky: "Those words
that we call proper names, of course, are less capable of
being a means of generalization than common words;
their task is to focus attention on the individual, extract
it from the plural, and contrast it with the plural.. But
proper names are also generalized as words in the sense
that they indicate by their nature a certain part of
speech, etc., that the concept belongs to one rather
than another sphere of perception."
CONCLUSION
Summing up the consideration of a proper name as a
linguistic and speech category, we can state the
following. Proper names are units of language
—
speech
(words and substantive phrases) that serve to
emphasize the specific naming of individual objects of
reality and, as a result of such specialization, have
developed certain features in meaning, grammatical
design and functioning. The purpose of a common noun
is to express the concept of a certain class of objects and
to name one or more specific objects of this class. The
purpose of a proper name is to name a specific subject,
correlating with a class of similar or related subjects. In
the foreground of a common word is the expression of
a concept, in the second is the designation of an object,
in the foreground of a proper name is the highlighting of
an object, in the second is the correlation of an object
with its like. For a common name, the designation of a
concept is mandatory and the naming of a specific
object is optional; for a proper name, the naming of a
specific object is mandatory and its (subject's)
conceptual correlation is optional.
REFERENCE
Begmatov E. A. O'zbekiston nomlari ma'lumotiismlari
ma’nosi (izoxlilug'at). 14 600 ismlar izoxi.2
-nashri.
—
Toshkent: O’zbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi (lug’at),
2007.
—
608 r.
Nafasov T. Мarkayev O'tish: Saytda Harakatlanish,
Qidiruv O'zbek etnoantroponimlari // Onomastika
O'zbekiston onomastikasi. Sat. tez.II rep. ilmiy-
amaliy.conf. - Qarshi, 1989.
—
P. 136-140.
Superenskaya A.V. Atoqli otlar struktrasi fonologiya va
morfonologiya.-
М.: Nauka, 1969.
Petrovskiy N.A. Rus shaxsiy ismlar lu
g’ati.
-
М.:
Izdatelstvo Sovetskaya ensiklopediya,1966.
Yermolovich D.I. atoqli otlr tillar va madaniyatlar
o’rtasida.
-
М.: R.Valent, 2001.
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
70
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
Козиева
И.
К.
ЛЕКСИКО
-
СЕМАНТИЧЕСКИЕ
СВОЙСТВА АНТРОПОНИМОВ В ХУДОЖЕСТВЕННОЙ
ЛИТЕРАТУРЕ //TADQIQOTLAR. UZ. –
2024.
–
Т.
33.
–
№. 1. –
С. 167
-171.
Ikbol K. Aesthetic onomastics and its functions in
artistic and intertext //International Journal on
Integrated Education.
–
2021.
–
Т. 4. –
№. 4. –
С. 132
-
136.
Komiljonovna K. I. ANTHROPONYMY AS A BRANCH OF
ONOMASTICS //Open Access Repository.
–
2023.
–
Т.
9.
–
№. 9. –
С. 84
-87.
Koziyeva I. ISSUES OF ANTHROPONYMY IN UZBEK AND
RUSSIAN LINGUISTICS //Science and innovation.
–
2023.
–
Т. 2. –
№. B1. –
С. 121
-123.
Kozieva I. ANTHROPONYMY STUDIES //Science and
innovation.
–
2023.
–
Т. 2. –
№. C10. –
С. 63
-65.
