Some consequences and critiques of The Pragmatic Theory of Properhood

Coates, R. (2011) Some consequences and critiques of The Pragmatic Theory of Properhood. Onoma, 41. pp. 27-44. ISSN 0078-463X

Full text not available from this repository

Publisher's URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/ONO.41.0.2119609

Abstract

In several recent papers (Coates 2005a, 2005b, 2006a) I have suggested an approach to name theory which I have called a pragmatic theory of properhood, or, if I may elevate the descriptive phrase iconically into a proper name, The Pragmatic Theory of Properhood. Its principal feature is that properhood is defined by usage, as a mode of reference, and not as a structural feature by means of which nouns or names are sorted into proper and common ones a priori. I shall outline the other main features of the theory briefly, then explore some of the consequences which may appear, or have been claimed, to be controversial or undesirable. One of the points I raise will be preemptive, whilst the others have been raised critically by other scholars, namely Fran Colman, John M. Anderson, and Willy Van Langendonck.

Item Type:Article
Additional Information:Published in 2011 (spine date 2006).
Uncontrolled Keywords:The Pragmatic Theory of Properhood
Faculty/Department:Faculty of Arts, Creative Industries and Education > Department of Arts and Cultural Industries
ID Code:16305
Deposited By: Professor R. Coates
Deposited On:03 Jan 2012 12:52
Last Modified:15 Aug 2013 11:34

Request a change to this item

Document Downloads

Total Document Downloads

More statistics for this item...
Copyright 2013 © UWE better together