Homonyms in Modern English
Ministry
of Education and Science of the Republic ofUniversity of International
Relations and World Languages named after Ablai Khan
Term
paperin Modern English
A.K. (209 group): 050207-Translation
Studies: The Essential of the English language Department Scientific
Supervisor: Zhaparova A.A.,MA
Almaty,
2011
CONTENTS
I. Introduction.1. The
theoretical aspects of the research
1.1 Phonetic coincidence and
semantic differences of homonyms
.2 Classification of homonyms
.3 Diachronically approach to
homonyms
.4 Synchronically approach in
studying homonymy
.5 Lexical,grammatical and
lexico-grammatical distinctions of homonyms 2. The interrelations between
homonymy and polysemantic words
.1 Comparative typological
analysis of linguistic phenomena in English and Russia
.2 Modern methods of
investigating homonyms
.3 Practical approach in
studying homonyms
.4 Polysemy and Homonymy:
Etymological and Semantic Criteria . Conclusion.. Bibliography.
I.INTRODUCTION
theme of this term paper sounds as
following: “Homonyms in Modern English”. Generally, it can be characterized by
the following:actuality of this term paper caused by several important points.
It must be said that the appearance of new, homonymic meanings is one of the
main trends in development of Modern English, especially in its colloquial
layer, which, in its turn at a high degree is supported by development of
modern informational technologies and simplification of alive speech. So the
theoretical value of this paper can be proved by the following reasons:)
Studying of homonyms is one of the developing branches in lexicology nowadays.)
Homonyms reflect the general trend of simplification of a language.) Homonymic
meanings of words are closely connected with the development of modern
informational technologies.) Being a developing branch of linguistics it
requires a special attention of teachers to be adequated to their
specialization in English.) The investigation of homonyms and their
differentiation with polysemantic words is not being still investigated in the
sufficient degree and this problem is still waiting for its investigator. This
term paper is one another attempt to investigate this problem.this theme has
been investigating for a long time, the aim of this term paper is to fully
investigate the sphere of homonyms, to define them by their classifications,
sources, origins and so on. Because there are lots of homonyms that are sure to
make most people stop and proofread their work.based upon the actuality and the
aim of the theme we are able to formulate the main tasks of the term paper:) To
study, analyze, and sum up all the possible changes happened in the studied
branch of linguistics for the past fifty years.) To teach the problem of
homonyms to young English learners.) To demonstrate the significance of the
problem for those who want to brush up their English.) To mention all the major
linguists’ opinions concerning the subject studied.we say about the new
information used within our work we may note that the work studies the problem
from the modern positions and analyzes the modern trends appeared in this
subject for the last ten years. In particular, the new meanings of the old
habitual words were mentioned in this term paper.practical value of this term
paper can be concluded in the following items:) The work could serve as a good
source of learning English by young teachers at schools and colleges.) The
lexicologists could find a lot of interesting information for themselves.)
Those who would like to communicate with the English-speaking people through
the Internet will find new causing homonymic terms in this term paper. Having
said about the linguists studied the material before we can mention that this
term paper was based upon the investigations, materials made by a number of
well known English, Russian lexicologists as A.I.Smirnitsky, B.A. Ilyish, V.V.
Vinogradov, O.Jespersen and others.we say about the methods of scientific
approaches used in this term paper we can mention that the method of
typological analyses was used.novelty (newness) of this term paper is concluded
in including the new homonymic meanings of words appeared during for the last
ten years by means of development and applying of the internet technologies.general
structure of this term paper looks as follows: It is composed into three major
parts: introduction, main part and conclusion. Each part has its subdivision
into the specific thematically items. There are two points in the introductory
part: the first item tells about the general content of the term paper while
the other gives us the general explanation of the lexicological phenomenon of
homonymy in language. The main part bears two chapters itself which, in their
turn, are subdivided into several specific items. The first chapter explains
the common analysis of homonyms in Modern English. Here we analyzed phonetic
coincidence and semantic differentiation of homonyms in Modern English (the
first item), accepted classification of the homonymic units of a language (the
second item), diachronic and synchronic research to the problem studied (third
and fourth items subsequently). The second chapter shows the interrelations
between homonyms and polysemantic words. In the first item we made the
etymological and semantic criteria of distinguishing of homonyms and
polysemantic words in the English language. The second item of the term paper
shows the typological analysis of the two linguistic phenomena in the two
languages compared: English and Russian.The third and the fourth items
summarize the ideas concerning the modern methods and practical approaches in
investigating the linguistic phenomenon of homonyms and polysemantic
words.conclusion of this term paper sums up the ideas discussed in the main
part (the first item) and shows the ways of implying of the term paper (in the
second item).object of this term paper is word which is identical in sound-form
but different in meaning. It is traditionally termed like homonymous. Modern
English is exceptionally rich in homonymous words and word-forms. It is held
that languages where short words abound have more homonyms than those where
longer words are divalent. Therefore it is sometimes suggested that abundance
of homonyms in Modern English is to be accounted for by the monosyllabic
structure of the commonly used English words.only words but other linguistic
units may be homonymous. Here, however, we are concerned with the homonymy of
words and word-forms only, so we shall not touch upon the problem of homonymous
affixes or homonymous phrases. When analyzing different cases of homonymy we
find that some words are homonymous in all their forms, i.e. homonymy of the
paradigms of two or more different words as, e.g., in seal!-'a sea animal' and
seal2-'a design printed on paper by means of a stamp'. The paradigm "seal,
seal's, seals, seals'" is identical for both of them and gives no
indica¬tion of whether it is sea or seal that we are analyzing. In other cases,
e.g. seal-'a sea animal' and (to) seal-'to close tightly', we see that although
some individual word-forms are homonymous, the whole of the paradigm is not
identical. Compare, for instance, the paradigms: (to)seal3 seal's seals sealed'
sealing, etcsubject of this term paper is homonyms, their individual and
partial forms. It is easily observed that only some of the word-forms (e.g.
seal, seals, etc.) are homonymous, whereas others (e.g. sealed, sealing) are
not. In such cases we cannot speak of homonymous words but only of homonymy of
individual word-forms or of partial homonymy. This is true of a number of other
cases, e.g. compare find [famdj, found [faund], found [faund] and found
[faundj, founded ['faundidj, founded [faundid]; know [nou], knows [nouz], knew
[nju:], and no [nou]; nose [nouz], noses [nouzizj; new [nju:] in which partial
homonymy is observed. Consequently all cases of homonymy may be classified into
full and partial homonymy, homonymy of words and homonymy of individual
word-forms. Exactly, Professor 0.Jespersen calculated that there are roughly four
times as many monosyllabic as polysyllabic homonyms.
II.MAIN PART
Chapter 1.
The theoretical aspects of the research
.1 Phonetic
coincidence and semantic differences of homonyms
Words identical in sound-form but
different in meaning are traditionally termed homonymous. Modern English is
exceptionally rich in homonymous words and word-forms. It is held that
languages where short words abound have more homonyms than those where longer
words are divalent. Therefore it is sometimes suggested that abundance of
homonyms in Modern English is to be accounted for by the monosyllabic structure
of the commonly used English words.only words but other linguistic units may be
homonymous. Here, however, we are concerned with the homonymy of words and
word-forms only, so we shall not touch upon the problem of homonymous affixes
or homonymous phrases When analyzing different cases of homonymy we find that
some words are homonymous in all their forms, i.e. we observe full homonymy of
the paradigms of two or more different words as, e.g., in seal a sea animal and
seal-a design printed on paper by means of a stamp'. The paradigm "seal,
seal's, seals, seals'" is identical for both of them and gives no
indication of whether it is seal (1) or seal (2) that we are analyzing. In
other cases, e.g. seal-a sea animal' and (to) seal (3)-'to close tightly, we
see that although some individual word-forms are homonymous, the whole of the
paradigm is not identical. Compare, for instance, the-paradigms:
. (to) seal-seal-seal's-seals-seals'
. seal-seals-sealed-sealing, etc.
. Professor O. Jespersen calculated
that there are roughly four times as many monosyllabic as polysyllabic
homonyms. It is easily observed that only some of the word-forms (e.g. seal,
seals, etc.) are homonymous, whereas others (e.g. sealed, sealing) are not. In
such cases we cannot speak of homonymous words but only of homonymy of
individual word-forms or of partial homonymy. This is true of a number of other
cases, e.g. compare find [faind], found [faund], found [faund] and found
[faund], founded ['faundidj, founded [faundid]; know [nou], knows [nouz], knew
[nju:], and no [nou]; nose [nouz], noses [nouziz]; new [nju:] in which partial
homonymy is observed.the examples of homonymy discussed above it follows that
the bulk of full homonyms are to be found within the same parts of speech (e.g.
seal(1) n-seal(2) n), partial homonymy as a rule is observed in word-forms
belonging to different parts of speech (e.g. seal n-seal v). This is not to say
that partial homonymy is impossible within one part of speech. For instance, in
the case of the two verbs Me [lai]-'to be in a horizontal or resting
position'-lies [laiz]-lay [lei]-lain [lein] and lie [lai]-'to make an untrue
statement'-lies [laiz]-lied [laid]-lied [laid] we also find partial homonymy as
only two word-forms [lai], [laiz] are homonymous, all other forms of the two
verbs are different. Cases of full homonymy may be found in different parts of
speech as, e.g., for [for]-divposition, for [fo:]-conjunction and four [fo:] -numeral,
as these parts of speech have no other word-forms.
1.2
Classification of homonyms
Modern English has a very extensive
vocabulary; the number of words according to the dictionary data is no less
than 400, 000. A question naturally arises whether this enormous word-stock is
composed of separate independent lexical units, or may it perhaps be regarded
as a certain structured system made up of numerous interdependent and
interrelated sub-systems or groups of words. This problem may be viewed in
terms of the possible ways of classifying vocabulary items. Words can be
classified in various ways. Here, however, we are concerned only with the
semantic classification of words which gives us a better insight into some
aspects of the Modern English word-stock. Attempts to study the inner structure
of the vocabulary revealed that in spite of its heterogeneity the English word-stock
may be analyzed into numerous sub-systems the members of which have some
features in common, thus distinguishing them from the members of other lexical
sub-systems. Classification into monosynaptic and polysemantic words is based
on the number of meanings the word possesses. More detailed semantic
classifications are generally based on the semantic similarity (or polarity) of
words or their component morphemes. Below we give a brief survey of some of
these lexical groups of current use both in theoretical investigation and
practical class-room teaching. The following venn diagram shows the
relationships between homonyms (between blue and yellow) and related linguistic
concepts. Several similar linguistic concepts are related to homonymy. These
include:
• Homographs (literally
"same writing") are usually defined as words that share the same
spelling, regardless of how they are pronounced.[note 1] If they are pronounced
the same then they are also homophones (and homonyms) - for example, bark (the
sound of a dog) and bark (the skin of a tree). If they are pronounced
differently then they are also heteronyms - for example, bow (the front of a
ship) and bow (a type of knot).
• Homophones (literally
"same sound") are usually defined as words that share the same
pronunciation, regardless of how they are spelled.[note 2] If they are spelled
the same then they are also homographs (and homonyms); if they are spelled
differently then they are also heterographs (literally "different
writing"). Homographic examples include rose (flower) and rose (past tense
of rise). Heterographic examples include to, too, two, and there, their,
they’re.
• Heteronyms (literally
"different name") are the subset of homographs (words that share the
same spelling) that have different pronunciations (and meanings).[note 3] That
is, they are homographs which are not homophones. Such words include desert (to
abandon) and desert (arid region); row (to argue or an argument) and row (as in
to row a boat or a row of seats - a pair of homophones). Heteronyms are also
sometimes called heterophones (literally "different sound").
• Polysemes are words with
the same spelling and distinct but related meanings. The distinction between
polysemy and homonymy is often subtle and subjective, and not all sources
consider polysemous words to be homonyms. Words such as mouth, meaning either
the orifice on one's face, or the opening of a cave or river, are polysemous
and may or may not be considered homonyms.
• Capitonyms are words that
share the same spelling but have different meanings when capitalized (and may
or may not have different pronunciations). Such words include polish (to make
shiny) and Polish (from Poland); march (organized, uniformed, steady and
rhythmic walking forward) and March (the third month of the year in the
Gregorian Calendar). However, both polish or march at the beginning of
sentences still need to be capitalized.
1.3
Diachronically approach of homonyms
Now let us analyze the semantic
similarity of morphemes. Lexical groups composed of words with semantically and
phonemically identical root-morphemes are usually described as word-families or
word-clusters. The term itself implies close links between the members of the
group. Such are word-families of the type: lead, leader, leadership; dark,
darken, darkness; form, formal, formality, and others. It should be noted that
members of a word-family as a rule belong to different parts of speech and are
joined together only by the identity of root-morphemes. In the word-families
discussed above the root-morphemes are identical not only in meaning but also
in sound-form. [1] There are cases, however, when the sound-form of
root-morphemes may be different, as for example in sun, sunny, solar; mouth,
oral, orally; brother, brotherly, fraternal, etc.; their semantic similarity
however, makes it possible to include them in a word-family. In such cases it
is usual to speak of lexical supplementation, i.e. formation of related words
of a word-family from phonemically different roots. As a rule in the
word-families of this type we are likely to encounter etymologically different
words, e.g. the words brother and mouth are of Germanic origin, whereas
fraternal and oral can be easily traced back to Latin. We frequently find
synonymic pairs of the type fatherly - paternal, brotherly-fraternal. Semantic
and phonemic identity of affixation morphemes can be observed in the lexical
groups of the type darkness, cleverness, calmness, etc.; teacher, reader,
writer, etc. In such word-groups as, e.g. teacher, doctor, musician, etc., only
semantic similarity of derivational affixes is observed. As derivational
affixes impart to the words a certain generalized meaning, we may single out
lexical groups denoting the agent, the doer of the action (Nomina
Agenti)-teacher, reader, doctor, etc. or lexical groups denoting actions
[Nomina Acti] - movement, transformation, and others. Now we shall study the
semantic similarities and polarities of words. Semantic similarity or polarity
of words may be observed in the similarity of their denotational or connotation
meaning. Similarity or polarity of the denotational component of lexical
meaning is to be found in lexical groups of synonyms and antonyms. Similarity
or polarity of the connotation components serves as the basis for stylistic
stratification of vocabulary units. Stylistic features of words and problems of
stylistic stratification in general were discussed in connection with different
types of meaning. So here let us confine ourselves mainly to the discussion of
the problems of the main word phenomena containing the English word stock: i.e.
we mean synonyms and antonyms.
1.4
Synchronically approach in studying homonyms
Synonymy, polysemy and homonymy in
the language hierarchy are usually felt to be correlative notions: firstly
because the criterion of synonymy is semantic similarity which is in exact
opposition to the criterion of antonym-semantic polarity. Secondly, because
synonyms and polysemantic words seem to overlap in a number of cases. For
instance, when we speak of the words “daddy” and “parent” as synonyms, we do so
because of the similarity of their denotational meaning and polarity of their
stylistic reference (cf. daddy-colloquial, parent-bookish).problem of synonymy
is treated similarity differently by different linguists. The most debatable
problem is the definition of synonyms. Synonyms are traditionally described as
words different in sound-form but identical or similar in meaning. This
definition has been severely criticized on many points. Firstly it seems
impossible to speak of identical or similar meaning of words as such, as this
part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words. It is
inconceivable that polysemantic words could be synonymous in all their meanings.
The verb “look”, for instance, is usually treated as a synonym of the following
words:”see”, “watch”, “observe”, etc., but in another of its meanings it is not
synonymous with this group of words but rather with the verbs seems, appear
(cf. to look at smb. and to look pale). The number of synonymic sets of a
polysemantism word tends as a rule to be equal to the number of individual
meanings the word possesses.
1.5
Lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical distinctions of homonymy
In the discussion of polysemy and
context we have seen that one of the ways of discriminating between different
meanings of a word is the interdivitation of these meanings in terms of their
synonyms, e.g. the two meanings of the adjective handsome are synonymously
interdivted as handsome-'beautiful' (usually about men) and
handsome-'considerable, ample' (about sums, sizes, etc.).it seems impossible
to" speak of identity or similarity of lexical meaning as a whole as it is
only the denotation component that may be described as identical or similar. If
we analyse words that are usually considered synonymous, e.g. to die, to pass
away; to begin, to commence, etc., we find that the connotation component or,
to be more exact, the stylistic reference of these words is entirely different
and it is only the similarity of the denotation meaning that makes them
synonymous. The words, e.g. to die, to walk, to smile, etc., may be considered
identical as to their stylistic reference or emotive charge, but as there is no
similarity of denotation meaning they are never felt as synonymous words.it
does not seem possible to speak of identity of meaning as a criterion of
synonymy as identity of meaning is very rare even among monosynaptic words. In
fact, cases of complete synonymy are very few and are, as a rule, confined to
technical nomenclatures where we can find monosynaptic terms completely
identical in meanings as, for example, spirant and fricative in phonetics.
Words in synonymic sets are in general differentiated because of some element of
opposition in each member of the set. The word handsome, e.g., is distinguished
from its synonym beautiful mainly because the former implies the beauty of a
male person or broadly speaking only of human beings, whereas beautiful is
opposed to it as having no such restrictions in its semantic structure. [2]
Thus it seems necessary to modify the traditional definition and to word it as
follows: synonyms are words different in sound-form but similar in their
denotational meaning or meanings. Synonymous relationship is observed only
between similar denotational meanings of phonemically different words.
Differentiation of synonyms may be observed in different semantic
components-denotational or connotation.should be noted, however, that the
difference in denotation meaning cannot exceed certain limits and is found only
as a variation of some common denotational component. The verbs look, seem,
appear, e.g., are viewed as members of one synonymic set as all three of them
possess a common denotational semantic component "to be in one's view”.
Semantic similarity of affixation morphemes is treated in more detail in the
chapter about Word-Formation in Prof. Ginsburg’s textbook on lexicology,
judgment, but not necessarily in fact" and come into comparison in this
meaning (cf. he seems (looks) (appears) tired). A more detailed analysis shows
that there is a certain difference in the meaning of each verb: seem suggests a
personal opinion based on evidence (e.g. nothing seems right when one is out of
sorts); look implies that opinion is based on a visual division (e.g. the city
looks its worst in March), appear sometimes suggests a distorted division (e.g.
the setting sun made the spires appear ablaze). Thus similarity of denotational
meaning of all members of the synonymic series is combined with a certain
difference in the meaning of each member. [3]follows that relationship of
synonymy implies certain differences in the denotational meaning of synonyms.
In this connection a few words should be said about the traditional
classification of vocabulary units into ideographic and stylistic synonyms.
This classification proceeds from the assumption that synonyms may differ
either in the denotational meaning (ideographic synonyms) or the connotation
meaning, i.e. stylistic reference (stylistic synonyms). This assumption cannot
be accepted as synonymous words always differ in the denotational component
irrespective of the identity or difference of stylistic reference. The
stylistic reference in the synonymous verbs seem, appear, look may be regarded
as identical though we observe some difference in their denotational component.
Difference in the denotational semantic component is also found in synonymous
words possessing different connotational components. The verbs see and behold,
e.g., are usually treated as stylistic synonyms; see is stylistically neutral
and behold is described as bookish or poetic. It can be readily observed,
however, that the difference between the two verbs is not confined solely to
stylistic reference. Though they have a common denotational component 'to take
cognizance of something by physical (or mental) vision', there is a marked
difference in their comparable meanings. The verb behold suggests only 'looking
at that which is seen', e.g. "behold them sitting in their glory"
(Shelley), The verb see denotes 'have or use power of sight' (e.g. the blind
cannot see), 'understand' (e.g. don't you see my meaning?), have knowledge or
experience of (e.g. he has seen a good deal in his long life) and others., the
interrelation of the denotational and the connotational meaning of synonyms is
rather complex. Difference or rather variation of the denotational component
does not imply difference in either the stylistic reference or the emotive
charge of members of synonymic series. Difference of the connotational semantic
component is invariably accompanied by some variation of the denotational
meaning of synonyms. Therefore it would be more consistent to subdivide
synonymous words into purely ideographic (denotational) and
ideographic-stylistic synonyms. It should be pointed out that neither criterion
the traditional definition of synonyms modified version suggested here provide
for any objective criterion of similarity of meaning. Judgment as to semantic
similarity is based solely on the linguistic intuition of the analyst. [4]is
sometimes argued that the meaning of two words is identical if they can denote
the same referent, in other words, if an object or a certain class of objects
can always be denoted by either of the two words. For example in the sentence
"Washington is the capital of the United
States"-"Washington" and "the capital of the United
States" have obviously the same referent, but there is no linguistic
relationship of synonymy between the two lexical units.attempts have been made
to introduce into the definition of synonymy the criterion of
interchangeability in linguistic contexts. It is argued that for the linguistic
similarity of meaning implies that the words are synonymous if either of them
can occur in the same context. In this case the relationship of synonymy is
defined as follows: "If A and B have almost identical environment except
chiefly for sentences which contain both, we say they are synonyms" (cf.
eye-doctor, oculist).well-known definition also proceeding from the contextual
approach is the definition of synonyms as words which can replace each other in
any given context without the slightest alteration either in the denotational
or connotational meaning.contextual approach also invites criticism as words
interchangeable in any given context are rarely found. This fact may be
explained as follows: firstly, words synonymous in some lexical contexts may
display no synonymy in others. As one of the English scholars aptly remarks,
the comparison of the sentences "the rainfall in April was abnormal"
and "the rainfall in April was exceptional" may give us grounds for
assuming that exceptional and abnormal are synonymous. The same adjectives in a
different context are by no means synonymous, as we may see by comparing
"my son is exceptional" and "my son is abnormal". [5], it
is evident that interchangeability alone cannot serve as a criterion of
synonymy. Werner safely assumes that synonyms are words interchangeable in some
contexts. But the reverse is certainly not true as semantically different words
of the same part of speech are, as a rule, interchangeable in quite a number of
contexts. For example, in the sentence "I saw a little girl playing in the
garden" the adjective little may be formally replaced by a number of
semantically different adjectives, e.g. ditty, tall, English, etc.a more
acceptable definition of synonyms seems to be the following: Synonyms are words
different in their sound-form, but similar in their denotational meaning or
meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts., the degree of synonymy
of words may be calculated by the number of contexts in which these words are
interchangeable. The simplest technique of such semantic analysis is
substitution in various contexts. It is argued that two synonymous adjectives,
e.g. deep and profound, could be analyzed in relation to each other by
ascertaining how far they are interchangeable in different contexts, say, in
combination with water, voice, remark, relief; what changes of denotational
meaning and emotive charge occur when they are interchanged (cf. deep
relief-profound relief); what is their proper antonym in each of these
combinations (shallow, high, superficial); in how many of the possible contexts
they are interchangeable without any considerable alteration of the
denotational meaning, etc.English word-stock is extremely rich. Synonymic
accounted for by abundant borrowing. '" English Quite a number of words in
a synonymic set are usually of Latin or French origin. For instance, out of
thirteen words making up the set see, behold, descry, espy, view, survey,
contemplate, observe, notice, remark, note, discern, perceive only see and
behold can be traced back to Old English (OE. seen and beheading), all others
are either French or Latin borrowings. [6], a characteristic pattern of English
synonymic sets is the pattern including the native and the borrowed words.
Among the best investigated are the so called double-scale patterns: native
versus Latin (e.g. bodily-corporal, brotherly- fraternal); native versus Greek
or French (e.g. answer- reply, fiddle-violin). In most cases the synonyms
differ in their stylistic reference, too. The native word is usually colloquial
(e.g. bodily, brotherly), whereas the borrowed word may as a rule be described
as bookish or highly literary (e.g. corporal, fraternal).by side with this
pattern there exists in English a subsidiary one based on a triple-scale of
synonyms: native- French and Latin or Greek [e.g. begin (start)-commence
(Fr.)-initiate (/.); rise-mount (Fr.)-ascend (/,)]. In most of these sets the
native synonym is felt as more colloquial, the Latin or Greek one is
characterized by bookish stylistic reference, whereas the French stands between
the two extremes. There are some minor points of interest that should be
discussed in connection with the problem of synonymy. It has often been found
that subjects prominent in the interests of a community tend to attract a large
number of synonyms. It is common knowledge that in Beowulf there are 37 synonyms
for hero or prince and at least a dozen for battle and fight. In Modern
American English there are at least twenty words used to denote money: beans,
bucks, the chips, do-re-mi, the needful, wherewithal, etc. This linguistic
phenomenon is usually described as the law of synonymic attraction , it has
also been observed that when a particular word is given a transferred meaning
its synonyms tend to develop along parallel lines. We know that in early New
English the verb overlook was employed in the meaning of 'look with an evil eye
upon, cast a spell over' from which there developed the meaning 'deceive' first
recorded in 1596. Exactly half a century later we find oversee a synonym of
overlook employed in the meaning of 'deceive'. This form of analogy active in
the semantic development of synonyms is referred to as "radiation of
synonyms".
Chapter 2.
The interrelations between homonymy and polysemantic words
.1
Comparative typological analysis of linguistic phenomena in English and Russian
As it was mentioned before, two or
more words identical in sound and spelling but different in meaning,
distribution and (in many cases) origin are called homonyms. The term is
derived from Greek (homos 'similar' and onoma 'name') and thus excises very
well the sameness of name combined with the difference in meaning.The most
widely accepted classification is that recognizing homonyms proper, homophones
and homographs. Homonyms proper are words identical in pronunciation and
spelling, like/as if and liver above or like scale 'one of the thin plates that
form the outer covering of most fishes and reptiles' and scale, 'a basis for a
system of measuring'. Homophones are words of the same sound but of different
spelling and meaning: air :: heir; arms :: alms; buy :: bye : by; him :: hymn;
knight :: night; not :: knot; or :: ore :: oar; piece ; peace; rain :: reign;
scent :: cent :: sent; steel :: steal; storey ;: story write :: right :: rite
and many others.example, in the sentence “The millwright on my right thinks it
right that some conventional rite should symbolize the right of every man to
write as he pleases.” the sound complex [rait] is noun, adjective, adverb and
verb, has four different spellings and six different meanings. [7]difference
may be confined to the use of a capital letter as in bill and Bill, in the
following example: "How much is my milk bill?" "Excuse me,
Madam, but my name is John." Homographs are words different in sound and
in meaning but accidentally identical in spelling: bow [bou] :: bow Ibau]; lead
[li:d] :: lead [led]; row [rouj :: row [rau]; sewer I'soua] :: sewer [sjual;
tear [tea] :: tear [tia]; wind [wind] :: wind [wand] and many more.has been
often argued that homographs constitute a phenomenon that should be kept apart
from homonymy as the object of linguistics is sound language. This viewpoint
cans hardly be accepted. Because of the effects of education and culture
written English is a generalized national form of division. An average speaker
does not separate the written and oral form. On the contrary he is more likely
to analyze the words in Terries of letters than in terms of phonemes with which
he is less familiar. That is why a linguist must take into consideration both
the spelling and the pronunciation of words when analyzing cases of identity of
form and diversity of content.[8]types of classification for homonyms proper
have been suggested. The one most often used in dissent-day Annalistic in
Russia it is that suggested by Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky. It has been criticized
for failing to bring out the main characteristic features of homonyms.more
comdivhensive system may be worked out on the same basis if we are guided by
the theory of oppositions and in classifying the homonyms take into
consideration the difference or sameness in their lexical and grammatical
meaning, paradigm and basic form. The distinctive features shown in the table
on lexical meaning (different denoted by A, or nearly same denoted by A)
grammatical meaning (different denoted by B, or
same denoted by B) paradigm (different denoted by C or same denoted by C), and
basic form (different D and same D).term "nearly same lexical
meaning" must not he taken too literally. It means only that the
corresponding members of the opposition have some important invariant components
in common. "Same grammatical meaning" implies that both members
belong to the same part of speech.paradigm comprises also cases when there is
only one word form, i.e. when the words are unchangeable. Inconsistent
combinations of features are crossed out in the table. It is, for instance,
impossible for two words to be identical in all word forms and different in
basic forms, or for two homonyms to show no difference either in lexical or
grammatical meaning, because in this case they are not homonyms. That leaves
seven possible classes.
2.2 Modern
methods of investigating homonyms
The intense development of homonymy
in the English language is obviously due not to one single factor but to
several interrelated causes, such as the monosyllabic character of English and
its analytic structure. Inflections have almost disappeared in dissent-day
English and have been superseded by separate words of abstract character
(dispositions, auxiliaries, etc.) stating the relations that once excised by
terminations. [9]abundance of homonyms is also closely connected with a
characteristic feature of the English language as the phonetic unity of word
and stem or, in other words, the dominance of forms among the most frequent
roots. It is very obvious that the frequency of words stands in some inverse
relationship to length, the monosyllabic words will be the most frequent
moreover, as the most frequent words are also highly polysemantic. It is only
natural that they develop meanings which in the course of time may deviate very
far from the central one. When the inter-mediate links fall out, some of these
new meanings lose all with the rest of the structure and start a separate
existence. Phenomenon is known as disintegration or split of polysemy,
Different causes by which homonymy may be brought about subdivided into two
main groups:
) Homonymy through convergent sound
development, when or three words of different origin accidentally coincide in
sound;
) Homonymy developed from polysemy
through divergent development. Both may be combined with loss of endings and
0tJier morphological processes.Old English the words “gesund”- 'healthy' and
“sund”- 'swimming' were separate words both in form and in meaning. In the
course of time they have changed their meaning and phonetic form, and for
latter accidentally coincided: OE “sund” in ME “sound” 'strait’. The group was
joined also accidentally by the noun sound 'what is or may be heard' with the
corresponding verb that developed from French and ultimately the Latin word
“sonus”, and the verb sound 'to measure the depth' of dubious etymology. The
coincidence is purely accidental. Unlike the homonyms case and sound all the
homonyms of the box group due to disintegration or split of polysemy are
etymologically connected. The sameness of form is not accidental but based on
genetic relationship. They are all derived from one another and are all
ultimately traced to the Latin “buxus”. The Concise Oxford Dictionary has five
separate entries for box: 1.box n. - 'a kind of small evergreen shrub';
. box n. 'receptacle made of wood,
cardboard, metal, etc. and usually provided with a lid';
. box v. 'to put into a box';
. box n. 'slap with the hand on the
ear';
. boxt v. ‘a sport term meaning 'to
fight with fists in padded gloves'. [10]homonyms may be partly derived from one
another but their common point of origin lies beyond the limits of the English
language. In these with the appearance of a new meaning, very different from
the devious one, the semantic structure of the parent word splits. The new meaning
receives a separate existence and starts a new semantic structure of its own.
It must be noted, however, that though the number of examples in which a
process of this sort could be observed is considerable, it is difficult to
establish exact criteria by which disintegration of polysemy could be detected.
The whole concept is based on stating whether there is any connection between
the meanings or not, and is very subjective. Whereas in the examples dealing
with phonetic convergence, i.e. when we said that “case1” and “case2” are
different words because they differ in origin, we had definite linguistic
criteria to go by, in the case of disintegration of polysemy there are none to
guide us; we can only rely on intuition and individual linguistic experience.
For a trained linguist the number of unrelated homonyms will be much smaller
than for an uneducated person. The knowledge of etymology and cognate languages
will always help to supply the missing links. It is easier, for instance, to
see the connection between beam 'a ray of light' and beam 'the metallic
structural part of a building' if one knows the original meaning of the word,
i.e. 'tree' (OE beam, Germ Baum), and is used to observe similar metaphoric
transfers in other words. The connection is also more obvious if one is able to
notice the same element in such compound names of trees as hornbeam, white
beam, etc. The conclusion, therefore, is that in diachronic treatment the only
rigorous criterion is that of etymology observed in explanatory dictionaries of
the English language where words are separated according to their origin, for
example, in the words match1 'a piece of inflammable material you strike fire
with' (from OFr “mesche”, Fr “meche”) and match (from OE “gemcecca”
'fellow').is interesting to note that out of 2540 homonyms listed in a
dictionary only 7% are due to disintegration of polysemy, all the others are
etymologically different. One must, however, keep in mind that patterned
homonymy is here practically disregarded. This underestimation of regular
patterned homonymy tends to produce a false division. Actually the homonymy of
nouns and verbs due to the processes of loss of endings on the one hand and
conversion on the other is one of the most prominent features of dissent-day
English. . It may be combined with semantic changes as in the pair “long”
(adj.) - “long” (verb). The explanation is that when it seems long before
something comes to you, you long for it (long (adj.) comes from OE “lang”,
whereas “long” (v.)comes from OE “langian”, so that the excision “Me longs”
means 'it seems long to me'.opposite process of morphemic addition can also
result in homonymy. This process is chiefly due to independent word-formation
with the same affix or to the homonymy of derivational and functional affixes.
The suffix -er forms several words with the same stem: trail - trailer 'a
creeping plant' vs. trailer 'a caravan', i.e. 'a vehicle drawn along by another
vehicle'. The suffix -s added to the homonymous stems -arm- gives “arms” (n.)
'Weapon' and “arms” (v.) 'Supplies with weapons'. In summing up this
dichromatic analysis of homonymy it should be emphasized that there are two
ways by which homonyms come into being, namely convergent development of sound
form and divergent development of meaning (see table below). The first may
consist in:
(a) phonetic change only,
(b) phonetic change combined with
loss of affixes,
(e) independent formationhomonymous
bases by means of homonymous morphemes. The second, that is divergent
development of meaning may be
(a) limited within one
lexico-grammatical class of words,
(b) combined with difference in
lexico-grammatical class and therefore difference in grammatical functions and
distribution,
(c) based on independent formation
from the same base by homonymous morphemes.process can sometimes be more
complicated. At dissent there are at least two homonyms: “stick”(noun1) -
'insert pointed things into', a highly polysemantic word, and the no less
polysemantic “stick” (noun) 'a rod'.the course of time the number of homonyms
on the whole increases, although occasionally the conflict of homonyms ends in
word loss.
2.3
Practical approach in studying homonyms
The synchronic treatment of English
homonyms brings to the forefront a set of problems of paramount importance for
different branches of applied linguistics: lexicography, foreign language
teaching and machine translation. These problems are: the criteria
distinguishing homonymy from polysemy, the formulation of rules for recognizing
different meanings of the same homonym in terms of distribution, and the
description of difference between patterned and irregular homonymy. It is
necessary to emphasize that all these problems are connected with difficulties
created by homonymy in understanding the message by the reader or listener, not
with formulating one's thoughts; they exist for the speaker only in so far as
he must construct his speech in a way that would divert all possible
misunderstanding.three problems are so closely interwoven that it is difficult
to separate them. So we shall discuss them as they appear for various practical
purposes. For a lexicographer it is a problem of establishing word boundaries.
It is easy enough to see that match, as in safety matches, is a separate word
from the verb match 'to suit'. But he must know whether he is justified in
taking into one entry match, as in football match, and match in meet one's
match 'one's equal'. Can the English verb bear in bear a burden, bear troubles,
bear fruit, bear offspring be viewed as a single word or as a set of two or
perhaps even more homonyms? Similarly, charge, in charge the gun, charge the
man with theft, charge somebody a stiff price can be viewed in several ways.the
synchronic level, when the difference in etymology is irrelevant, the problem
of establishing the criterion for the distinction between different words
identical in sound form, and different meanings of the same word becomes hard
to solve. The semantic criterion which ultimately is reduced to distinguishing
between words that "have nothing in common semantically" and those
that "have something in common" and therefore must be taken as one
lexical unit, is very vague and hopelessly subjective. Nevertheless the problem
cannot be dropped altogether as upon an efficient arrangement of dictionary
entries depends on the amount of time spent by the readers in looking up a
word: a lexicographer will either save or waste his readers' time and
effort.solutions differ. It is a widely used in English lexicography to combine
in one entry words of identical phonetic form showing similarity of lexical
meaning or, in other words, revealing a lexical invariant, even if they belong
to different parts of speech. In post-war lexicography in our country a
different trend has settled. The Anglo-Russian dictionary edited by V. D.
Arakin makes nine separate entries with the word “right” against four items
given in the dictionary edited by Hornby. The necessary restriction is that
different sources must be traced within the history of the language. Words that
coincided phonetically before they penetrated into the English vocabulary are
not taken into account. The etymological criterion, however, may very often
lead to distortion of the dissent-day situation. The English vocabulary of
to-day is not a replica of the Old English vocabulary with some additions from
borrowing. It is in many respects a different system, and this system will not
be revealed if the lexicographer is guided by etymological criteria only. A
more or less simple, if not very rigorous, procedure based on purely synchronic
data may be prompted by transformational analysis. It may be called explanatory
transformation. It is based on the assumption that if different senses rendered
by the same phonetic complex can be defined with the help of an identical
kernel word-group, they may be considered sufficiently near to be regarded as
variants of the same word; if not, they are homonyms.the following set of
examples:
. A child's voice is heard. 2. His
voice ... was ... annoyingly well-bred.
. The voice-voicelessness
distinction ... sets up some English consonants in opposed pairs...
. In the voice contrast of active
and passive ... the active is the unmarked form.first variant (voice 1 may be
defined as 'sounds uttered in speaking or singing as characteristic of a
particular person', voice 2 as 'mode of uttering sounds in speaking or
singing', voice 3 as 'the vibration of the vocal chords in sounds uttered'. So
far all the definitions contain one and the same kernel element rendering the
invariant common basis of their meaning. It is, however, impossible to use the
same kernel element for the meaning dissent in the fourth example. The
corresponding definition is: "Voice - that forms of the verb that excises
the relation of the subject to the action". This failure to satisfy the
same explanation formula sets the fourth meaning apart. It may then be
considered a homonym to the polysemantic word embracing the first three
variants.procedure described may remain helpful when the items considered
belong to different parts of speech; the verb voice may mean, for example, 'to
utter a sound by the aid of the vocal chords'. This brings us to the problem of
patterned homonymy, i. e. of the invariant lexical meaning dissent in homonyms
that have developed from one common source and belong to various parts of
speech.a lexicographer justified in placing the verb to voice with the above
meaning into the same entry with the first three variants of the noun? The same
question arises with respect to after or before - disposition, conjunction and
adverb.elder generation of English linguists thought it quite possible for one
and the same word to function as different parts of speech. Such pairs as act n
- act v, back n - back v, drive n - drive v, the above mentioned after and
before and the like, were all treated as one word functioning as different
parts of speech. Later on this point of view was severely criticized. It was
argued that one and the same word could not belong to different parts of speech
simultaneously because this would contradict the definition of the word as a
system of forms. This viewpoint is not faultless either: if one follows it
consistently one should regard as separate words all cases when words are
countable nouns in one meaning and uncountable in another, when verbs can be
used transitively and intransitively, etc. In this case hair 'all the hair that
grows on a person's head will be one word, an uncountable noun; whereas a
single thread of hair will be denoted by another word (hair2) which, being
countable, and thus different in paradigm, cannot be considered the same word.
It would be tedious to enumerate all the absurdities that will result from
choosing this path. A dictionary arranged on these lines would require very
much space in printing and could occasion much wasted time in use. The
conclusion therefore is that efficiency in lexicographic work is secured by a
rigorous application of etymological criteria combined with formalized
procedures of establishing a lexical invariant suggested by synchronic linguistic
methods.to those concerned with teaching of English as a foreign language, they
are also keenly interested in patterned homonymy. The most frequently used
words constitute the greatest amount of difficulty, as may be summed up by the
following example: I think that this "that" is a conjunction but that
«that" man that used was a pronoun.correct understanding of this
peculiarity of contemporary English should be instilled in the pupils from the
very beginning, and they should be taught to find their way in sentences where
several words have their homonyms in other parts of speech, as in Jespersen's
example: Will change of air cure-love? To show the scope of the problem for the
elementary stage a list of homonyms that should be classified as patterned is
given below: “Above” - divp., adv., adj.; “act”- n., v.; “after” - divp., adv.,
conj.; “age” - n., v.; “back” - n., adv., v.; “ball” - n., v.; “bank”. We may
give the other examples: by, can, case, close, country, course, cross, direct,
draw, drive, even, faint, flat, fly, for, game, general, hard, hide, hold,
home, just, kind, last, leave, left, lie, light, like, little, lot, major,
march, match, may, mean, might, mind, miss, part, plain, plane, plate, right,
round, sharp, sound, spare, spell, spring, square, stage, stamp, try, type,
volume, watch, well, will, etc.the most part all these words are cases of
patterned lexico-grammatical homonymy taken from the minimum vocabulary of the
elementary stage: the above homonyms mostly differ within each group grammatically
but possess some lexical invariant. That is to say, act v follows the standard
four-part system of forms with a base form act, an s-form (act-s), a Past Tense
form (acted) and an -ing- form (acting) and takes up all syntactic functions of
verbs, whereas act n can have two forms, act (singular.) and acts (plural).
Semantically both contain the most generalized component rendering the notion
of doing something.investigations have shown that it is quite possible to
establish and to formalize the differences in environment, syntactical or
lexical, serving to signal which of the several inherent values is to be
ascribed to the variable in a given context.example of distributional analysis
will help to make this point clear. The distribution of a lexico-semantic
variant of a word may be redivsented as a list of structural patterns in which
it occurs and the data on its combining power. Some of the most typical
structural patterns for a verb are: N + V -f- N, N + V -f- Prep.; V- N,
N-f-V-f-Adj., N + V + Adv., N + V + t o -f- V and some others. Patterns for
nouns are far less studied, but for the dissent case one very typical example
will suffice. This is the structure article for A + N. In the following extract
from "A Taste of Honey" by Sheaththe morpheme “laugh” occurs three
times:
. I can't stand people who laugh at
other people.
. They'd get a bigger laugh, if they
laughed at themselves.attempting to give a more detailed analysis of these
operations since they belong rather to grammar than to lexicology, we may sum
up our discussion by pointing out that whereas distinction between polysemy and
homonymy is relevant and important for lexicography it is not relevant for the
practice of either human or machine translation. The reason for this is that
different variants of a polysemantic word are not less conditioned by context
than lexical homonyms. In both cases the identification of the necessary
meaning is based on the corresponding .Distribution that can signal it and must
be dissent in the memory either of the pupil or the machine. The distinction
between patterned and non-patterned homonymy, greatly underrated until now, is
of far greater importance. In non-patterned homonymy every unit is to be
learned separately both from the lexical and grammatical points of view. In
patterned homonymy when one knows the lexical meaning of a given word in one
part of speech, one can accurately deduct the meaning when the same sound
complex occurs in some other part of speech, provided, of course, that there is
sufficient context to guide one.
2.4
Polysemy and Homonymy: Etymological and Semantic Criteria
Homonymy exists in many languages,
but in English it is particularly frequent, especially among monosyllabic
words. In the list of 2540 homonyms given in the Oxford English Dictionary 89%
are monosyllabic words and only 9,1% are words of two syllables. From the
viewpoint of their morphological structure, they are mostly one-morpheme words.
Many words, especially those characterized by a high frequency rating, are not connected
with meaning by a one-to-one relationship. On the contrary, one symbol as a
rule serves to render several different meanings. The phenomenon may be said to
be the reverse of synonymy where several symbols correspond to one
meaning.borrowed from other languages may through phonetic convergence become
homonymous. Old Norse has and French race are homonymous in Modern English (cf.
race1 [reis]-'running' and race2 [reis] 'a distinct ethnical stock'). There are
four homonymic words in Modern English: sound -’healthy’ was already in Old
English homonymous with sound-'a narrow passage of water', though
etymologically they are unrelated. Then two more homonymous words appeared in
the English language, one comes from Old French son (L. sonus) and denotes 'that
which is or may be heard' and the other from the French sunder the surgeon's
probe. One of the most debatable problems in semasiology is the demarcation
line between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between different meanings of one word
and the meanings of two homonymous words. Synchronically the differentiation
between homonymy and polysemy is wholly based on the semantic criterion. It is
usually held that if a connection between the various meanings is apdivhended
by the speaker, these are to be considered as making up the semantic structure
of a polysemantic word, otherwise it is a case of homonymy, not polysemy.the
semantic criterion implies that the difference between polysemy and homonymy is
actually reduced to the differentiation between related and unrelated meanings.
This traditional semantic criterion does not seem to be reliable, firstly,
because various meanings of the same word and the meanings of two or more
different words may be equally apdivhended by the speaker as synchronically
unrelated/ For instance, the meaning 'a change in the form of a noun or
pronoun' which is usually listed in dictionaries as one of the meanings of
case!-'something that has happened', 'a question decided in a court of law'
seems to be just as unrelated to the meanings of this word as to the meaning of
case 2 -'a box, a container', etc.in the discussion of lexico-grammatical
homonymy it was pointed out that some of the mean of homonyms arising from
conversion (e.g. seal in-seal 3 v; paper n-paper v) are related, so this criterion
cannot be applied to a large group of homonymous word-forms in Modern English.
This criterion proves insufficient in the synchronic analysis of a number of
other borderline cases, e.g. brother-brothers- 'sons of the same parent' and
brethren-'fellow members of a religious society'. The meanings may be
apdivhended as related and then we can speak of polysemy pointing out that the
difference in the morphological structure of the plural form reflects the
difference of meaning. Otherwise we may regard this as a case of partial
lexical homonymy. The same is true of such cases as hang-hung-hung-'to support
or be supported from above' and hang-hanged-hanged-'to put a person to death by
hanging' all of which are traditionally regarded as different meanings of one
polysemantic word. It is sometimes argued that the difference between related
and unrelated meanings may be observed in the manner in which the meanings of
polysemantic words are as a rule relatable. It is observed that different
meanings of one word have certain stable relationships which are not to be
found between the meanings of two homonymous words. A clearly perceptible
connection, e.g., can be seen in all metaphoric or metonymic meanings of one
word (cf., e.g., foot of the man- foot of the mountain, loud voice-loud colors,
etc., 1 cf. also deep well and deep knowledge, etc.).semantic relationships are
commonly found in the meanings of one word and are considered to be indicative’
of polysemy. It is also suggested that the semantic connection may be described
in terms of such features as, e.g., form and function (cf. horn of an animal
and horn as an instrument), process and result (to run-'move with quick steps'
and a run-act of running).more objective criterion of distribution suggested by
some linguists is criteria: undoubtedly helpful, but mainly
increase-distribution of lexico - grammatical and grammatical homonymy. In the
homonymic pair paper n-(to) paper v the noun may be decided by the article and
followed by a verb; (to) paper can never be found in identical distribution.
This formal criterion can be used to discriminate not only lexico-grammatical
but also grammatical homonyms, but it often fails the linguists in cases of
lexical homonymy, not differentiated by means of spelling. Some linguists hold
that the basic and elementary units at the semantic level of language are the
lexico-semantic variants of the word, i.e. individual word-meanings. In that
case, naturally, we can speak only of homonymy of individual lexico-semantic
variants, as polysemy is by definition, at least on the synchronic plane, the
co-existence of several meanings in the semantic structure of the word. The
criticism of this viewpoint cannot be discussed within the framework different
semantic structure. The problem of homonymy is mainly the problem of
differentiation between two different semantic structures of identically
sounding words.
. Homonymy of words and homonymy of
individual word-forms may be regarded as full and partial homonymy. Cases of
full homonymy are generally observed in words belonging to the same part of
speech. Partial homonymy is usually to be found in word-forms of different
parts of speech.
. Homonymous words and word-forms
may be classified by the type of meaning that serves to differentiate between
identical sound-forms. Lexical homonyms differ in lexical meaning,
lexico-grammatical in both lexical and grammatical meaning, whereas grammatical
homonyms are those that differ in grammatical meaning only.
. Lexico-grammatical homonyms are
not homogeneous. Homonyms arising from conversion have some related lexical
meanings in their semantic structure. Though some individual meanings may be
related the whole of the semantic structure of homonyms is essentially
different.
. If the graphic form of homonyms is
taken into account, they are classified on the basis of the three aspects -
sound-form, graphic form and meaning - into three big groups: homographs
(identical graphic form), homophones (identical sound-form) and perfect
homonyms (identical sound- and graphic form).
. The two main sources of homonymy
are:
) diverging meaning development of
one polysemantic word, and
. The most debatable problem of
homonymy is the demarcation line between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between
different meanings of one word and the meanings of two or more phonemically
different words.
. The criteria used in the
synchronic analysis of homonymy are:
) the semantic criterion of related
or unrelated meanings;
) the criterion of spelling;
) the criterion of distribution, and
) the criterion of
context.grammatical and lexico-grammatical homonymy the reliable criterion is
the criterion of distribution. In lexical homonymy there are cases when none of
the criteria enumerated above is of any avail. In such cases the demarcation
line between polysemy and homonymy is rather fluid.'
. The problem of discriminating
between polysemy and homonymy in theoretical linguistics is closely connected
with the problem of the basic unit at the semantic level of analysis.applied
linguistics this problem is of the greatest importance in lexicography and also
in machine translation. Homonyms are words different in meaning
but identical in sound or spelling, or both in sound and spelling. Homonyms can
appear in the language not only as the result of the split of polysemy, but
also as the result of leveling of grammar inflexions, when different parts of
speech become identical in their outer aspect, e.g. «care» from «care» and
«care» from «careen». They can be also formed by means of conversion, e.g. «to
slim» from «slim», «to water» from «water». They can be formed with the help of
the same suffix from the same stem, e.g. «reader» - a person who reads and a
book for reading.can also appear in the language accidentally, when two words
coincide in their development, e.g. two native words can coincide in their
outer aspects: «to bear» from «beran» /to carry/ and «bear» from «bera» /an
animal/. A native word and a borrowing can coincide in their outer aspects,
e.g. «fair» from Latin «feria» and «fair « from native “fagen” /blond/. Two
borrowings can coincide e.g. «base» from the French «base» /Latin basis/ and
«base» /low/ from the Latin «bas» /Italian «basso»/.can develop through
shortening of different words, e.g. «cab» from «cabriolet», «cabbage», «cabin».
A more detailed classification was given by I.V. Arnold. He classified only
perfect homonyms and suggested four criteria of their classification: lexical
meaning, grammatical meaning, basic forms and paradigms.to these criteria I.V.
Arnold pointed out the following groups:) homonyms identical in their
grammatical meanings, basic forms and paradigms and different in their lexical
meanings, e.g. «board» in the meanings «a council» and «a piece of wood sawn
thin»;) homonyms identical in their grammatical meanings and basic forms,
different in their lexical meanings and paradigms, e.g. to lie - lied - lied,
and to lie - lay - lain;) homonyms different in their lexical meanings,
grammatical meanings, paradigms, but coinciding in their basic forms,.g.
«light» / «lights»/, «light» / «lighter», «lightest»/;) homonyms different in
their lexical meanings, grammatical meanings, in their basic forms and
paradigms, but coinciding in one of the forms of their paradigms, e.g. «a bit»
and «bit» (from «to bite»).I. V. Arnold's classification there are also
patterned homonyms, which, differing from other homonyms, have a common
component in their lexical meanings. These are homonyms formed either by means
of conversion, or by leveling of grammar inflexions. These homonyms are
different in their grammar meanings, in their paradigms, identical in their
basic forms, e.g. «warm» - «to warm». Here we can also have unchangeable
patterned homonyms which have identical basic forms, different grammatical
meanings, a common component in their lexical meanings, e.g. «before» an
adverb, a conjunction, a disposition. There are also homonyms among unchangeable
words which are different in their lexical and grammatical meanings, identical
in their basic forms, e.g. «for» - «для» and «for» - «и6o». Nowadays methods of
distinction of homonymy and polysemy were worked out. This helps us to differ
the meaning of the same word and homonymy which formed in a result of the
complete gap of polysemy. Below let us study the methods of studying of
synonymy and homonymy.
. The lexical method of distinction
of homonymy and polysemy. This method is concluded in revealing the synonymic
connection of polysemy and homonymy. If consonant units are get in one
synonymic row when different meanings of words remain still the semantic
intimacy and, there fore, it is early to say that polysemy is transferred in to
homonymy. If the consonant words are not get in one synonymic row that words
are homonymy.and polysemy are different categories in polysemy we deal with the
different meanings of the same word. In homonymy we have different words which
have their own meanings. For example, the word "man" has ten meanings
in Modern English:
1
- человек; 2 - мужчина; 3 - адвокат; 4 - мужественный человек;5-человечество; 6
- слуга; 7 - рабочий; 8 - муж; 9 - вассал; 10 - пешка.
As the all meanings are connected
with the major meaning "чeлoвeк". But homonyms are different words
which have nothing in common between themselves. For example "bark1” -
"лай собаки" and "bark2" - "плывущий корабль". In
this example we can see that homonymy words coincide only in pronunciation and
writing.
. Some scientists say that the
substitution of different meanings of words by the synonyms may help to differ
the homonyms from polysemantic words. This way of distinction of polysemy and
homonymy gets its name in literature as “etiological criterion”. For example
"voice1 - "sounds uttered in speaking" (sound);
"voice2" - "mode of uttering sounds in speaking" (sound);
"voice3" - “the vibration of the vocal cords in sounds uttered”
(sound); "voice4" - "the form of the verb that excises the
relation of the subject to the action". "Voice1" -
"voice2" - "voice3" are not homonymic in their character
although they have different meanings because of the reason that they can be
substituted by the synonymic word "sound". As far as "voice4"
is concerned as homonymic to the devious three meanings because the fourth
meaning of the word “sound” can not be substituted by the word common to the
devious three meanings of the word “voice” (i.e. the analyzed meaning of the
word "sound").
. We also use the semantic method of
distinction of these occurrences. The meaning of homonyms always mutually
excepts each other and the meaning of polysemantic words airs formed by one
sensible structure keeping the semantic intimacy: one of the meanings assumes,
while the other is non-irresistible limit.semantic criterion implies that the
difference between polysemy and homonymy is actually reduced to the
differentiation between related and unrelated meanings. This semantic criterion
does not seen to be reliable, firstly, because various meanings of same word and
the meanings of two or more different words may be equally apdivhended by
speaker.
. There is a fourth method of
distinction of polysemy and homonymy. It is morphological method. It means that
polysemy and homonymy are characterized by the various word -building. So some
words which have a few meanings the new word is formed with the same suffix.,
the following conclusion can also be drawn: the problem of distinction of
homonymy and polysemy in all the languages compared has not been investigated
thoroughly yet and there is still much opportunities to discover new fields of
approaches and this problem is still waiting its salvation.
CONCLUSION
phonetic homonym
linguistic phenomena
Having analyzed the problem of
homonyms in Modern English we could do the following conclusions: a) The
problem of homonyms in Modern English is very actual nowadays. b) There are
several problematic questions in the field of homonymy the major of which is
the problem of distinguishing of homonyms and polysemantic words. d) The
problem of homonymy is still waiting for its detail investigation.also must be
said that whereas distinction between polysemy homonymy is relevant and
important for lexicography it is not relevant for the practice of either human
or machine translation. The reason for this is that different variants of a
polysemantic word are not less conditioned by context then lexical homonyms. In
both cases the identification of the necessary meaning is based on the
corresponding distribution that can signal it and must be present in the memory
either of the pupil or the machine. The distinction between patterned and
non-patterned homonymy, greatly underrated until now, is of far greater
importance. In non-patterned homonymy every unit is to be learned separately
both from the lexical and grammatical points of view. In patterned homonymy
when one knows the lexical meaning of a given word in one part of speech, one
can accurately predict the meaning when the same sound complex occurs in some
other part of speech, provided, of coarse, that there is sufficient context to
guide one. More generally, whereas prior studies have treated homonyms
equivalently in analysis and experimentation, our understanding of these words
and how they are processed could be enriched by studying homonym subclasses
that might differ on various dimensions such as lexical organization, language
evolution, and language play.said about the perspectives of the work we hope
that this work will find its worthy way of applying at schools, lyceums and
colleges of high education by both teachers and students of English. Let us
also hope that this term paper will take its worthy place among the
lexicological works dedicated to the types of shortening.
Bibliography
[1]
Ginzburg R.S. et al. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979 pp.72-82
[2]
O. Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395-412
[3].Smirnitsky
A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977 pp.57-59,89-90
[4]
Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State
Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp.17-31
[5]
Canon G. Historical Changes and English Wordformation: New Vocabulary items.
N.Y., 1986. p.284
[6]
Howard Ph. New words for Old. Lnd., 1980. p.311
[7]
Halliday M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotics. Social Interdivtation of Language
and Meaning. Lnd., 1979.p.53,112
[8]
Maurer D.W. , High F.C. New Words - Where do they come from and where do they
go. American Speech., 1982.p.171
[9]
Canon G. Historical Changes and English Word formation: New Vocabulary items.
N.Y., 1986. p.284
[10]
Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981pp.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Arnold I.V. The English Word M. High School 1986 pp. 143-149
.
O. Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395-412
.
Jespersen ,Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford, 1982
pp.246-249
.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford 1964., pp.147, 167,
171-172
.V.D.
Arakin English Russian Dictionary M.Russky Yazyk 1978 pp. 23-24, 117-119,
133-134
.Smirnitsky
A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977 pp.57-59,89-90
.
Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State
Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp.17-31
.
Howard Ph. New words for Old. Lnd., 1980. p.311
.
Bloomsbury Dictionary of New Words. M. 1996 стр.276-278
.
Hornby The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Lnd. 1974 стр.92-93,
111
.
Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981pp.23-25
.
Internet: http://www.wikipedia.com/English/articles/homonymy.htm
.
Internet: http://www mpsttu.ru/works/english philology/ Э. М. Дубенец. Курс
лекций и планы семинарских занятий по лексикологии английского языка.htm
14.
Internet:http://www.freeessays.com/english/M.Bowes Quantiitive and Qualitive
homonymy.htm