Unni Leino
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3917-0026 
Tampere University, Finland

https://doi.org/10.4467/K7478.47/22.23.17729

Abstract
The nature of properhood is one of the fundamental questions in onomastics. Nouns are traditionally categorised as either proper names or common nouns, but a word can change from one category to another. In recent times, properhood has been explained in terms of pragmatics so that a lexeme can function as a proper name in one context and a common noun in another. Related to this, the relationship between proprial reference and appellative meaning has been problematised in various ways over time. Traditionally, onomasticians have tended to consider proper names to be without meaning as such, so that a similar-sounding proper name and common noun are seen as homonyms. Some textbooks go even further and claim that each instance of a proper name – such as Mary referring to different individuals – is a different name. Relaxing the categorical divide between pragmatics and semantics makes it possible not only to define properhood in terms of the pragmatic use of the lexeme but also to study the various changes between the appellative sense and onymic reference, or between etymologically connected onymic references, with theoretical tools already used for more mainstream semantic change.

Keywords
properhood, polysemy, pragmatics, semantic change