Notion of 'Proper Name'

'Proper name' as such does not convey any meaning, yet it plays a significant role in the usage of language. It is nothing more than a logical device on the view of Russell. He argued that let's consider the sentence, "Scott is the author of Waverley". If we assign the symbol 'C' to the expression "the author of Waverley", then it can be written "Scott is C". If 'C' is false, then the sentence is false. If it is so then a question arises: when can we say that "C is Scott"? In this regard two possibilities are found. These are:

1. If C is not Scott then the proposition is false.
2. If C is the name of Scott, then the proposition becomes a tautology. And, we can assert that "Scott is Scott".

'Proper names' are not therefore same as descriptions. They are abbreviated and translated descriptions. For example, Newton, Nehru, Gandhi are proper names. The proper name 'Nehru' has a referent when we say "x is Nehru, who was a freedom fighter, and the first prime minister of India, etc. When we describe these properties of an individual, it must refer to an individual. It cannot refer to more than one individual. But there is a possibility that some ambiguities may arise when we find there is a proper name but does not have a referent as well as clear description of it. For example, 'unicorn' and 'serpent' are the proper names, but they do not refer to any individual or object. In this regard, proper names cannot be treated descriptions. Otherwise, all proper names could be replaced by descriptions. For example, Vice-chancellor, Health Minister etc., are the proper names and can be replaced by definite descriptions.