Logical Mechanisms Used in The Analysis of Proper Names Between Classical and Contemporary Theories

        Proper Names have taken the forefront in research on linguistics and contemporary philosophers due to their fundamental function of referring to a person, place, time, or general identification. Proper Names play a crucial role in our understanding of language and its referential nature. Although Proper Names are familiar expressions in natural language, their meanings have remained a subject of debate among various regions, where discussions revolve around a range of questions: Do names have meanings, or do they simply refer to specific things without mediating any meaning? How do names refer to things? Is referring to things the only function of names? Are all linguistic entities names? How can a word signify something associated with a person who refers to another thing? Do expressions like "Barack Obama," "Aristotle's father," and "this dog" all refer in the same way?
        To answer these questions, four theories have emerged, which can be divided into three major classical theories: John Stuart Mill's theory, Gottlob Frege's theory, and Bertrand Russell's theory, along with the contemporary theory of Saul Kripke. These theories have presented a diverse range of results regarding the nature of proper names. We can provide an initial clarification through a familiar proper name, let's say "Aristotle." According to Mill's theory, it is a "meaningless sign, a reference without meaning." According to Frege, it is a "reference and meaning." Russell's theory suggests that it can be referred to disguised descriptions. As for Kripke's theory, it views proper names, including "Aristotle," as rigid designators.
     The previous results pose a central problem: What is the nature of the logical mechanisms used in the analysis of proper names by these theorists, which led them to these results? To answer this problem, the researcher dedicates four main sections, preceded by "Preliminary Notes on the Theory" for each section, and followed by a general commentary on the theory. The conclusion encompasses the most significant findings of the study.