Homonymy in English

 

Introduction

 

English Homonymy is the topic of a great interest. It is fact that Modern English is abundant in homonyms - there are hundreds of pairs of them in the English language and no common points of view on such phenomenon as homonymy exist among the lexicologists. A lot of heated arguments are held for the general description of this phenomenon, various principles of classification are given by different specialists, classificatory schemes are being intensively discussed but the point of contact is not achieved at all. That is why the problem of investigation of homonyms is very important in English Lexicology.

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 [ 8; p.89].

The abundance of homonyms is also closely connected with such a characteristic feature of the English language as the phonetic identity of word and stem or, in other words, the predominance of free forms among the most frequent roots. It is quite obvious that if the frequency of words stands in some inverse relationship to their 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.

Generally the English homonymy is a fertile ground for exploration and now we shall try to investigate it in our research.

The aim of our term paper is to study the phenomenon of English homonyms thoroughly and to present different classifications of homonyms which are known in modern Lexicology.

The necessary tasks to achieve the objectives of our investigation are the following:

– to present general description of homonyms.

– to find out the origin and the sources of English homonyms.

– to study different classifications of English homonyms made by famous lexicologists.

– to learn the problems of English homonymy.

– to draw distinction between homonymy and polysemy.

The object of the present research is the phenomena of homonyms in Modern Lexicology. The subject of the research is the criteria of English homonyms.

The practical significance of our work can be singled out as the following points:

– English-speaking people can use our research to master their language with the help of English homonyms.

– the work could serve as a good source of learning English by young teachers and specialists.

– People can elaborate their own point of view on the problem of English homonymy and do some other research works on this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1. General Notion, Origin and Sources of English Homonyms

 

1. General notion of English Homonyms

In linguistics, a homonym is, in the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings [25]. An outstanding linguist Arnold I. V considers homonyms to be two or more words identical in sound and spelling but different not only in meaning but also in distribution and  (in many cases) origin [4, p.181]. The term “homonym” is derived from Greek “homonymous” (“homos” means ‘the same' and “onoma” means ‘name’).

Here are some examples of English Homonymy:

back (n) – part of the body                ball (n) – a round object used in games

back (adv) – away from the front          ball (n) – a gathering people for dancing

back (v) – to go back

Not only words but other linguistic units may be homonymous. 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 [18, p.354]. For example:

1) seal – a sea animal.

2) 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 (n) —a sea animal and to seal (v)— 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:

1) seal-seal-seal's-seals-seals

2) to seal-seals-sealed-sealing, etc.

Professor O. Jespersen calculated that there are roughly four times as many monosyllabic as polysyllabic homonyms [23, p.402]. 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. For instance compare find [faind], found [faund], found [faund] and found [faund], founded ['faundid], founded [faundid]; know [nou], knows [nouz], knew [nju:], and no [nou]; nose [nouz], new [nju:] in which partial homonymy is observed.

From the examples of homonymy discussed above it follows that the bulk of full homonyms are to be found within the same parts of speech and partial homonymy as a rule is observed in word-forms belonging to different parts of speech.

 

1.2 Different Sources of Homonyms

It is very important to speak about the origin and the sources of homonyms. They can be of various kinds such as and we shall try to point out the major of them.

One source of homonyms is phonetic changes, which words undergo in the course of their historical development. As a result of such changes, two or more words, which were formally pronounced differently, may develop identical sound forms and thus become homonyms [17, p. 246].

Night and knight, for instance, were not homonyms in Old English as the initial k in the second word was pronounced, and not dropped as it is in its modern sound form: O.E. kniht (cf. O.E. niht). A more complicated change of form brought together another pair of homonyms: to knead (O.E. cneadan) and to need (O.E. neodian).

In Old English the verb to write had the form writan, and the adjective right had the forms reht, riht. The noun sea descends from the Old English form sae, and the verb to see – from O.E. seon. The noun work and the verb to work also had different forms in Old English: wyrkean and weork respectively [25].

Borrowing is another source of homonyms. A borrowed word may, in the final stage of its phonetic adaptation, duplicate in form either a native word or another borrowing. So, in the group of homonyms rite (n) — to write(v) — right (adj) the second and third words are of native origin whereas rite is a Latin borrowing (< Lat. ritus). In the pair piece(n) —peace (n) the first originates from O. F. pais, and the second from O. F. (< Gaulish) pettia. Bank (n) ("shore") is a native word, and bank (n) ("a financial institution") is an Italian borrowing. Fair (adj) (as in a fair deal, it's not fair) is native, and fair (n) ("a gathering of buyers and sellers") is a French borrowing and so on [19, p.56].

Word-building also contributes significantly to the growth of homonymy, and the most important type in this respect is undoubtedly conversion. Such pairs of words as comb (n) — to comb (v), pale (adj) — to pale (v), to make (v) — make (n) are numerous in the vocabulary. Homonyms of this type, which are the same in sound and spelling but refer to different categories of parts of speech, are called lexico-grammatical homonyms [1, p.125].

Shortening is a further type of word-building which increases the number of homonyms. E. g. fan (n) in the sense of "an enthusiastic admirer of some kind of sport or of an actor, singer, etc." is a shortening produced from fanatic. Its homonym is a Latin borrowing fan (n) which denotes an implement for waving lightly to produce a cool current of air. The noun rep denoting a kind of fabric has three homonyms made by shortening: rep (< repertory), rep (< representative), rep (< reputation)', all the three are informal words.

During World War II girls serving in the Women's Royal Naval Service (an auxiliary of the British Royal Navy) were jokingly nicknamed Wrens (informal). This neologistic formation made by shortening has the homonym wren (n) "a small bird with dark brown plumage barred with black" [2, p.182].

Words made by sound-imitation can also form pairs of homonyms with other words: e. g. bang (n) ("a loud, sudden, explosive noise") — bang (n) ("a fringe of hair combed over the forehead"). Also nouns: mew, n. ("the sound a cat makes") — mew, n. ("a sea gull") — mew ("a pen in which poultry is fattened") — mews ("small terraced houses in Central London").

The above-described sources of homonyms have one important feature in common. In all the mentioned cases the homonyms developed from two or more different words, and their similarity is purely accidental. (In this respect, conversion certainly presents an exception for in pairs of homonyms formed by conversion one word of the pair is produced from the other: a find < to find.)

The next source of homonyms differs essentially from all the above–listed cases. Two or more homonyms can originate from different meanings of the same word when, for some reason, the semantic structure of the word breaks into several parts. This type of formation of homonyms is called disintegration or split of polysemy [4, p.184].

It should have become clear that the semantic structure of a polysemantic word presents a system within which all its constituent meanings are held together by logical associations.[Яковлева] In most cases, the function of the arrangement and the unity is determined by one of the meanings. For example fire (n):

1. Flame

2. An instance of destructive burning: a forest fire

3. Burning material in a stove, fireplace: There is a fire in the next room. A camp fire.

4. The shooting of guns: to open (cease) fire.

5. Strong feeling, passion, and enthusiasm: a speech lacking fire.

If this meaning happens to disappear from the word's semantic structure, associations between the rest of the meanings may be severed, the semantic structure loses its unity and falls into two or more parts which then become accepted as independent lexical units [12, p.283].

Let us consider the history of three homonyms:

board, n – a long and thin piece of timber

board, n – daily meals, esp. as provided for pay, e.g. room and board

board, n – an official group of persons who direct or supervise some activity, e.g. a board of directors.

     It is clear that the meanings of these three words are in no way associated with one another. Yet, most larger dictionaries still enter a meaning of board that once held together all these other meanings ‘a table’. It developed from the meaning ‘a piece of timber’ by transference based on contiguity (association of an object and the material from which it is made). The meanings ‘meals’ and ‘an official group of persons’ developed from the meaning ‘table’, also by transference based on contiguity: meals are easily associated with a table on which they are served; an official group of people in authority are also likely to discuss their business round a table [14, p.527].         

Nowadays, however, the item of the furniture, on which meals are served and round which boards of directors meet, is no longer denoted by the word board but by the French Norman borrowing table, and board in this meaning, though still registered by some dictionaries, can be marked as archaic as it is no longer used in common speech. That is why, with the intrusion of the borrowed table, the word board actually lost its corresponding meaning. But it was just that meaning which served as a link to hold together the rest of the constituent parts of the word’s semantic structure. With its diminished role as an element of communication, its role in the semantic structure was also weakened. The speakers almost forgot that board had ever been associated with any item of furniture, nor could they associate the notions of meals or of a responsible committee with a long thin piece of timber (which is the oldest meaning of board). Consequently, the semantic structure of board was split into three units. The following scheme illustrates the process:

Scheme 1.Board, n (development of meanings)

A long, thin piece of timber		A piece of furniture			Meals provided for pay
					An official group of persons

 

Scheme 2.Board I, II, III, n (split of polysemy)

I.	A long, thin piece of timber		A piece of furniture	II.	Meals provided for pay
			Seldom used: ousted by French borrowing table	III.	An official group of persons

 

A somewhat different case of split of polysemy may be illustrated by the three following homonyms: spring (n) — the act of springing, a leap spring (n) — a place where a stream of water comes up out of the earth, spring (n) — a season of the year.  Historically all three nouns originate from the same verb with the meaning of "to jump, to leap" (O. E. springan), so that the meaning of the first homonym is the oldest. The meanings of the second and third homonyms were originally based on metaphor. At the head of a stream the water sometimes leaps up out of the earth, so that metaphorically such a place could well be described as a leap. On the other hand, the season of the year following winter could be poetically defined as a leap from the darkness and cold into sunlight and life. Such metaphors are typical enough of Old English and Middle English semantic transferences but not so characteristic of modern mental and linguistic processes. The poetic associations that lay in the basis of the semantic shifts described above have long since been forgotten, and an attempt to re-establish the lost links may well seem far-fetched. It is just the near-impossibility of establishing such links that seems to support the claim for homonymy and not for polysemy with these three words[2,p.184].

It should be stressed, however, that split polysemy as a source of homonyms is not accepted by some scholars. It is really difficult sometimes to decide whether a certain word has or has not been subjected to the split of the semantic structure and whether we are dealing with different meanings of the same word or with homonyms, for the criteria are subjective and imprecise. The imprecision is recorded in the data of different dictionaries which often contradict each other on this very issue, so that board is represented as two homonyms in Professor V. K. Muller's dictionary [16, p.1561], as three homonyms in Professor V. D. Arakin's [24, p. 386] and as one and the same word in Hornby's dictionary.

Spring also receives different treatment. V. K. Muller's and Hornby's dictionaries acknowledge but two homonyms:

1. a season of the year,

2. a) the act of springing, a leap; b) a place where a stream of water comes up out of the earth; and some other meanings, whereas V. D. Arakin's dictionary presents the three homonyms as given above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2. Types of Classification of English Homonyms

 

2.1. Standard Classification by I. V. Arnold

The most widely accepted classification was worked out by Arnold I. V. who distinguishes homonyms proper, homophones and homographs [4, p.182].

Homonyms proper are words identical in pronunciation and spelling, like back (n) ‘part of the body’ – back (adv) ‘away from the front’ – back v ‘go back’; bark (n) ‘the noise made by dog’ – bark (v) ‘to utter sharp explosive cries’ – bark (n) ‘the skin of a tree’ – bark (n) ‘a sailing ship’; base( n) ‘bottom’ – base (v) ‘build or place upon’ ; bay (n) ‘part of the sea or lake filling wide-mouth opening of land’ – bay (n) ‘recess in a house or room’ – bay (v) ‘bark’ – bay (n) ‘the European laurel’.

The important point is that homonyms are distinct words: not different meanings within one word.

Homophones are words of the same sound but of different spelling and meaning: air – hair; arms – alms; buy – by; him – hymn; knight – night; not – knot; or – oar; piece – peace; rain – reign; scent – cent; steel – steal; storey – story; write – right and many others.

In the sentence The play-wright 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 a noun, an adjective, an adverb and a verb, has four different spellings and six different meanings. The 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.”

On the other hand, whole sentences may be homophonic: The sons raise meat – The sun’s rays meet. To understand these one needs a wider context. If you hear the second in the course of a lecture in optics, you will understand it without thinking of the possibility of the first.

Homographs are words different in sound and in meaning but accidentally identical in spelling: bow [bou] – bow [bau]; lead [li:d] – lead [led]; row [rou] – row [rau]; sewer [‘soue] – sewer [sjue]; tear [tie] – tear [tee]; wind [wind] – wind [waind] and many more.

It 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 can hardly be accepted. Because of the effects of education and culture written English is a generalized national form of expression. An average speaker does not separate the written and oral form. On the contrary he is more likely to analyze the words in terms 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.

 

2.2. Classification of English Homonyms by A. I Smirnitsky.

The classification mentioned above is certainly not precise enough and does not reflect certain important features of homonyms and, most important of all, their status as parts of speech. The given examples show that homonyms may belong both to the same and to different categories of parts of speech. Obviously, the classification of homonyms should reflect this distinctive features. Also, the paradigm of each word should be considered, because it has been observed that the paradigms of some homonyms coincide completely, and of others only partially [18, p.335].

Accordingly Professor A.I. Smirnitsky classifies homonyms into two large classes:

1. full homonyms
2. partial homonyms

 

Full lexical homonyms are words, which represent the same category of parts of speech and have the same paradigm. For example:

Match (n) – a game, a contest

Match (n) – a short piece of wood used for producing fire

 

Wren (n) – a member of the Women’s Royal Naval Service

Wren n – a bird

Partial homonyms are subdivided into three subgroups:

A. Simple lexico-grammatical partial homonyms are words, which belong to the same category of parts of speech. Their paradigms have only one identical form, but it is never the same form, as will be soon from the examples:

to found (v)

found (v) (past indef. of to find)

 

to lay (v)

lay (v) (past indef. of to lie)

 

to bound (v)

bound (v) (past indef., past part. of to bind)

B. Complex lexico-grammatical partial homonyms are words of different categories of parts of speech, which have identical form in their paradigms.

Rose (n)

Rose (v) (past indef. of to rise)

 

Maid (n)

Made (v) (past indef. of to make)

 

Left (adj)

Left (v) (past indef. of to leave)

 

Bean (n)

Been (v) (past part. of to be)

 

One (num)

Won (v) (past indef. of to win)

C. Partial lexical homonyms are words of the same category of parts of speech which are identical only in their corresponding forms.

to lie (lay, lain) (v)

to lie (lied, lied) (v)

 

to hang (hung, hung) (v)

to hang (hanged, hanged) (v)

 

to can (canned, canned)

           (I) can (could)

2.3. Other aspects of classification

A comprehensive system may be worked out 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 [4, p.183].

As both form and meaning can be further subdivided, the combination of distinctive features by which two words are compared becomes more complicated. There are four features: the form may be phonetical and graphical, the meaning — lexical and grammatical, a word may also have a paradigm of grammatical forms different from the basic form [10, p.287].The distinctive features shown in the table are lexical meaning (different denoted by A, or nearly the same denoted by A), grammatical meaning (different denoted by B, or same by B), paradigm (different denoted by C, or same denoted by C), and basic form (different D and same D). The term “nearly same lexical meaning” means only that the corresponding members of the opposition have some important invariant semantic components in common. “Same grammatical meaning” implies that both members belong to the same part of speech. “Same 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 twelve possible classes:

 

Difference and Identity in Words
A Different lexical meaning			A1 Nearly same lexical meaning
B Different grammatical meaning	Partial Homonymy		Patterned Homonymy		D1 Same basic forms
	light, -s n light,-er,-est a flat, -s n flat,-er,-est a	for prp for cj	before prp before adv before cj	eye, -s n eye, -s, -ed, -ing v
	might n may-might v			thought n thought v (Past Indef. Tense of think)	D Different basic form
B1 Same grammatical meaning	axis, axes n axe – axes n but–butted v butt-butted v			Synonyms	D Different basic form
	lie-lay-lain v lie-lied-lied v	Full Homonymy spring,-s n spring,-s n spring,-s n	Polysemy Variants of the same polysemantic word
	C Different paradigm	C1 Same paradigm or no changes		C Different paradigm

 

 

ABCD. Same as above, only not both members are in their basic form. The noun (here might ‘power’) is in its basic form, the singular, but the verb may will coincide with it only in the Past Tense. This lack of coincidence between basic forms is not frequent, so only few examples are possible. Compare also bit n ‘a small piece’ and bit (the Past Indefinite Tense and Participle II of bite).

ABCD. Contains pairs of words belonging to the same part of speech, different in their basic form but coinciding in some oblique form, e. g. in the plural, or in the case of verbs, in the Past Tense. Axe — axes, axis — axes. The type is rare.

ABCD. Different lexical meaning, same basic form, same grammatical meaning and different paradigm: lie — lay — lain and lie — lied — lied. Not many cases belong to this group.

ABCD. Represents pairs different in lexical and grammatical meaning but not in paradigm, as these are not changeable form words. Examples: for prp contrasted to for cj.

ABCD. The most typical case of full homonymy accepted by everybody and exemplified in every textbook. Different lexical meanings, but the homonyms belong to the same part of speech: spring₁ n ‘a leap’ :: spring₂ ‘a source’ :: spring₃ n ‘the season in which vegetation begins’.

ABCD. Patterned homonymy. Differs from the previous (i.e. ABCD) in the presence of some common component in the lexical meaning of the members, some lexical invariant: before prp, before adv, before cj, all express some priority in succession. This type of opposition is regular among form words. .

ABCD. Pairs showing maximum identity. But as their lexical meaning is only approximately the same, they may be identified as variants of one polysemantic word.

ABCD. Contains all the cases due to conversion: eye n : : eye v. The members differ in grammatical meaning and paradigm. This group is typical of patterned homonymy. Examples of such noun-to-verb or verb-to-noun homonymy can be augmented almost indefinitely. The mean-ing of the second element can always be guessed if the first is known.

ABCD. Pairs belonging to different parts of speech and coinciding in some of the forms. Their similarity is due to a common root, as in thought n : thought v (the Past Indefinite Tense of think).

ABCD. Similarity in both lexical and grammatical meaning combined with difference in form is characteristic of synonyms and hyponyms.

ABCD. The group is not numerous and comprises chiefly cases of double plural with a slight change in meaning such as brother — brothers : : brother — brethren.

It goes without saying that this is a model that gives a general scheme. Actually a group of homonyms may contain members belonging to different groups in this classification. Take, for example, fell₁ (n) ‘animal’s hide or skin with the hair’; fell₂ (n) ‘hill’ and also ‘a stretch of North-English moorland’; fell₃ (a) ‘fierce’ (poet.); fell₄ (v) ‘to cut down trees’ and as a noun ‘amount of timber cut’; fell₅ (the Past Indefinite Tense of the verb fall). This group may be broken into pairs, each of which will fit into one of the above described divisions. Thus, fell₁ : : fell₂ may be characterised as ABCD, fell₁ : : fell₄ as ABCD and fell₄ : : fell₅ as ABCD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3. Homonymy And Polysemy

 

3.1. Homonymy treated synchronically

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 prevent all possible misunderstanding [4, p. 185].

All 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'. Similarly, charge, in charge the gun, charge the man with theft, charge somebody a stiff price can be viewed in several ways.

On 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 [7, p.40]. Nevertheless the problem cannot be dropped altogether as upon an efficient arrangement of dictionary entries depends 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.

Actual solutions differ. It is a widely spread practice 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 [24, p.387] makes nine separate entries with the word “right” against four items given in the dictionary edited by Hornby [22, p.682].

The truth is that there exists no universal criterion for the distinction between polysemy and homonymy.The etymological criterion, however, may very often lead to distortion of the present-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 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 [6, p.101].

Consider the following set of examples:

1. A child's voice is heard.

2. His voice ... was ... annoyingly well-bred.

3. The voice-voicelessness distinction ... sets up some English consonants in opposed pairs...

4. In the voice contrast of active and passive ... the active is the unmarked form.

The first variant (voice₁) may be defined as 'sounds uttered in speaking or singing as characteristic of a particular person', voice₂ as 'mode of uttering sounds in speaking or singing', voice₃ 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 present in the fourth example. The corresponding definition is: "Voice — that forms of the verb that expresses 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.

The 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 present in homonyms that have developed from one common source and belong to various parts of speech [4, p.186].

The elder generation of English linguists thinks it is 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) are all treated as one word functioning as different parts of speech. This point of view was severely criticised. 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 hair₁ ‘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 formalised procedures of establishing a lexical invariant suggested by synchronic linguistic methods.

As 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 jocular example: I think that this “that” is a conjunction but that that “that” that that man used was a pronoun.

A 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? [23, p.404].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 - prp, adv, a; act - n, v; after - prp, adv, cj; age - n, v; back - n, adv, v; bal - n, v; bank - n, v; before - prp, adv, cj; besides - prp, adv; bill - n, v; box - n, v. The other examples are: 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, 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.

For 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 Indefinite Tense form (acted) and an ing-form (acting) and takes up all syntactic functions of verbs, whereas act (n) can have two forms, act (sing.) and acts (pl.). Semantically both contain the most generalised component rendering the notion of doing something.

Recent investigations have shown that it is quite possible to establish and to formalise the differences in environment, either syntactical or lexical, serving to signal which of the several inherent values is to be ascribed to the variable in a given context. An example of distributional analysis will help to make this point clear.

The distribution of a lexico-semantic variant of a word may be represented 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+N, N+V+prp+N, N+V+A, N+V+adv, N+ V+to+V and some others. Patterns for nouns are far less studied, but for the present case one very typical example will suffice. This is the structure: article+A+N [4, p.187].

In the following extract from “A Taste of Honey”  by Shelagh Delaney the morpheme laugh occurs three times: I can’t stand people who faugh at other people. They'd get a bigger laugh, if they laughed at themselves.

We recognise laugh used first and last here as a verb, because the formula is N+laugh+prp+N and so the pattern is in both cases N+ V+prp+N. In the beginning of the second sentence laugh is a noun and the pattern is article+A+N.

This elementary example can give a very general idea of the procedure which can be used for solving more complicated problems.

 

3.2. Polysemy and Homonymy: Etymological and Semantic Criteria

One of the most debatable problems in lexicology is the demarcation line between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between different meanings of one word and the meanings of two homonymous words [9, p.93].

Words borrowed from other languages may through phonetic convergence become homonymous. Old Norse has and French race are homonymous in Modern English (race₁ —'running' and race₂ '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’

The transition from polysemy to homonymy is a gradual process, so it is hardly possible to point out the precise stage at which divergent semantic development tears all ties of etymological kinship and results in the appearance of two separate words. In the case of flower - flour, it is mainly the result of the divergence of graphic forms that gives us grounds to assert that the two meanings which originally made up the semantic structure of one word are now apprehended as belonging to two different 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 apprehended 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.

Thus 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 apprehended 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 case₂ —'a box, a container', etc. [20, p.108].

Secondly, some of the meanings of homonyms arising from conversion (e.g. seal (n)—seal (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 apprehended 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 [21, p.196]. A clearly perceptible connection, e.g., can be seen in all metaphoric or metonymic meanings of one word (foot of the man— foot of the mountain, loud voice—loud colors, deep well and deep knowledge, etc.).

Such 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 ( horn of an animal and horn as an instrument), process and result (to run—'move with quick steps' and a run—act of running).Similar relationships, however, are observed between the meanings of two homonymic words, e.g. to run and a run in the stocking.

Moreover in the synchronic analysis of polysemantic words we often find meanings that cannot be related in any way, as, e.g., the meanings of the word case discussed above. Thus the semantic criterion proves not only untenable in theory but also rather vague and because of this impossible in practice as it cannot be used in discriminating between several meanings of one word and the meanings of two different words.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

Homonymy exists in many languages, but in English it is particularly frequent, especially among monosyllabic words. From the viewpoint of their morphological structure, they are mostly one-morpheme words.

The English language is rich in homonyms and this phenomenon is the field of great arguments between different lexicologists. The problem of homonyms is still actual nowadays.

Having investigated the phenomenon of homonymy in the English language we performed some important and necessary tasks:

• we became familiar with the definition of homonym.
• we found out the origin of English homonymy.
• various classifications of homonyms were given and fully observed.
• the problems of homonyms in Modern English language were found out and discussed.
• we drew the distinction between homonymy and polysemy.

Though a lot of investigations are held over the phenomenon of English homonymy and a big amount of research works are written, the topic is still open. Nobody can say that the problem of homonymy is finally solved. A number of famous linguists dealt with the problem of homonyms in Modern English and no common ground was found. So the problem of English homonymy is still waiting for its detail investigation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

1.Амосова Н.Н.Этимологические основы словарного состава современного английского языка. – М. : Изд-во лит. на иностр. яз.,1956. — 218 c.

 

2.Антрушина Г. Б., Афанасьева О. В., Морозова Н. Н.

Лексикология английского  языка: Учеб. пособие