Search

Proper names are always defined in relation to common nouns. No agreement on their definition has yet been reached. Following Philippe [2020: 445], the study explores the hypothesis that proper names are not nouns but borrow from the semantics, morphology and syntax of nouns, through a contrastive analysis of denominal verbs originating from proper names and verbs originating from common nouns. Because morphological or phonological variables cannot account for the difference between these two categories, the focus is on the correlation between the type of the base and the metonymic processes involved in verbal derivation, following Janda [2011]. The analysis finds that the number of metonymic processes at stake during denominal verbal derivation depends on the type of the base, and that verbs originating from proper names need an extra cognitive step during verbal derivation. However, this difference between proper names and common nouns may rather be linked to derivational semantic constraints than to a definitional difference between proper names and common nouns.

Proper names are good examples of the interaction between language and society. They are used to refer to specific and unique entities. Taking side with the thesis which states that proper names have a meaning, this article explores the evolution of the use of proper names as denominal verbs in English (boycott for instance) with a specific focus on how their meaning is generated. Although this study confirms to a certain extent the impact of the historical context on the use of proper names as verbs and, as a result, suggests that this type of denominal verb serves as a window to a culture and society, it mostly argues that the semantic structure underlying the use of proper names as verbs is relatively stable through time and heavily constrained by the type of proper name used which in turn defines the chain of metonymies which can operate to form the meaning of the verb.