Homonyms in English and their specific features
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 -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
present 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 Sheath
Delaney the morpheme “laugh” occurs three
times:
1.I can't stand people who laugh at other people.
2. They'd get a bigger laugh, if they laughed at
themselves.
We recognize laugh used first and last here as a verb
because the formula is N + laugh + prep + N and so the pattern is in
both cases -[-V H-prep — N. In the beginning of the second
sentence laugh is a noun and the pattern is article -f- A -J- N.
This elementary example can give a very general idea of
the procedure which can be used for solving more complicated
99Distributional analysis of this type is of great
practical importance both in foreign language teaching and in machine
translation. In order to translate a sentence the machine must
analyze it, i.e. determine the types of elementary configurations
that constitute it. Practically speaking, the pupil even if taught by
patterns, must do the same. Elementary configurations are not mere
word-groups but combinations of word>
Without 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 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
course, that there is sufficient context to guide one.
5.2.2 Homonyms may be also>
In seal n and seal n, e.g., the part-of-speech meaning
of the word and the grammatical meanings of all its forms are
identical. (cf. seal [si:l] Common Case Singular, seal's [si:lz]
Possessive Case Singular for both seal* and sea!2). The difference is
confined to lexical meaning only or, to be more exact, to the
denotational component: seal denotes 'a sea animal', 'the fur of this
animal', etc., seaI2—'a design printed on paper, the stamp by
which the design is made', etc. So we can say that seal 2 and seal
are lexical homonyms as they differ in lexical meaning.
If we compare seal —'a sea animal' and (to) seal
3—'to close tightly', we shall observe not only a difference in
the lexical meaning of their homonymous word-forms, but a difference
in their grammatical meanings as well. Identical sound-forms, i.e.
seals [si:lz] (Common Case Plural of the noun) and (he) seals [si:lz]
(third person Singular of the (verb) possess each of them different
grammatical meanings. As both grammatical and lexical meanings differ
we describe these homonymous word-forms as lexico-grammatical
homonymy.
Lexico-grammatical homonymy generally implies that the
homonyms in question belong to different parts of speech as the
part-of-speech meaning is a blend of the lexical and grammatical
semantic components. There may be cases however when
lexico-grammatical homonymy is observed within the same part of
speech as, e.g., in the verbs (to) find [faind] and (to) found
[faund], where homonymic word-forms: found [faund]—Past Tense
of (to) find and found [faund]—Present Tense of (to) found
differ both grammatically and lexically. Modern English abounds in
homonymic word-forms differing in grammatical meaning only. In the
paradigms of the majority of verbs the form of the Past Tense is
homonymous with the form of Participle II, e.g. asked [a:sktl—asked
[a:skt]; in the paradigm of nouns we usually find homonymous forms of
the Possessive Case Singular and the Common Case Plural, e.g. :
brother’s . It may be easily observed that grammatical homonymy
is the homonymy of different word-forms of one and the same word. The
two>
1. seal a sea animal'—seal 3 v—'to close
tightly as with a seal;
2. seal 2 n—'a piece of wax, lead'—seal 3
f—'to close tightly as with a seal'.
We can see that seal n and seal 3 v actually differ in
both grammatical and lexical meanings. We cannot establish any
semantic connection between the meaning «a sea animal" and
"to close tightly". The lexical meanings of seal 2 n and
seal3u are apprehended by speakers as closely related for both the
noun and the verb denote something connected with "a piece of
wax, lead, etc., a stamp by means of which a design is printed on
paper and paper envelopes are tightly closed". Consequently the
pair seal 3 n—seal 3 v does not answer the description of
homonyms as words or word-forms that sound alike but differ in
lexical meaning. This is true of a number of other cases of
lexico-grammatical homonymy, e.g. work n—(to) work o; paper
/i—(to) paper v; love n—(to) love v and so on. As a
matter of fact all homonyms arising from conversion have related
meanings.
It is sometimes argued that as a rule the whole of the
semantic structure of such words is not identical. The noun paper,
e.g., has at least five meanings (1. material in the form of sheets,
2. a newspaper, 3. a document, 4. an essay, 5. a set of printed
examination questions) whereas the verb paper possesses but one
meaning "to cover with wall-paper". It follows that the
whole of the semantic structure of the two words is essentially
different, though individual meanings are related.
Considering this peculiarity of lexico-grammatical
homonyms we may subdivide them into two groups: A. identical in
sound-form but different in their grammatical and lexical meanings
(sea n—seal3 v), and B. identical in sound-form but different
in their grammatical meanings and partly different in their lexical
meaning, i.e. partly different in their semantic structure (seal2 v;
paper n—(to) paper v). Thus the definition of homonyms as words
possessing identical sound-form but different semantic structure
seems to be more exact as it allows of a better understanding of
complex cases of homonymy, e.g. seah n—seah n—sealx v
—seal3 u which can be analyzed into homonymic pairs, e.g. seal
n—seal n—lexical homonyms; seal n—seal 3
v—lexico-grammatical homonyms, subgroup A; seals n—seal3y—
lexico-grammatical homonyms, subgroup B; etc.
In the discussion of the problem of graphic homonymy we
proceeded from the as possessing both sound-form and meaning, and we
deliberately disregarded their graphic form. Some linguists, however,
argue that the graphic form of words in Modern English is just as
important as their sound-form and should be taken into consideration
in the analysis and>
Homographs are words identical in spelling, but
different both in their sound-form and meaning, e.g. bow n [bouj—
'a piece of wood curved by a string and used for shooting arrows' and
bow n (bail—'the bending of the head or body'; tear n [tiaj—'a
drop of water that comes from the eye' and tear v [tesj—'to
pull apart by force'.
Homophones are words identical in sound-form but
different both in spelling and in meaning, e.g. sea n and see v; son
n and sun n.
Perfect homonyms are words identical both in spelling
and in sound-form but different in meaning, e.g. case in something
that has happened' and case n—'a box, a container’. It
may be readily observed that in this approach no distinction is made
between homonymous words and homonymous word-forms or between full
and partial homonymy. The description of various types of Sources
homonyms in Modern English would of Homonymy incomplete if we did
flat give flat brief outline of the diachronic processes that account
for their appearance.
6.2.2 The two main sources of homonymy are:
1) diverging meaning development of one polysemantic
word, and 2) converging sound development of two or more different
words. The process of diverging meaning development can be observed
when different meanings of the same word move so far away from each
other that they come to be regarded as two separate units. This
happened, for example, in the case of Modern English flower and flour
which originally were one word meaning 'the flower' and 'the finest
part of wheat'. The difference in spelling underlines the fact that
from the synchronic point of view they are two distinct words even
though historically they have a common origin.
Convergent sound development is the most potent factor
in the creation of homonyms. The great majority of homonyms arise as
a result of converging sound development which leads to the
coincidence of two or more words which were phonetically distinct at
an earlier date.
For example: OE. Icand OE cage have become identical in
pronunciation (MnE. I [ai] and eye [ai], A number of
lexico-grammatical homonyms appeared as a result of convergent sound
development of the verb and the noun (cf. MnE. love—(to) love
and OE. lufu—lufian).
5.2.2 Polysemy and Homonymy: Etymological and
Semantic Criteria
Words 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.
If homonymy is viewed diachronically then all cases of
sound convergence of two or, more words may be safely regarded as
cases of homonymy as, e.g., sound i, sound2, sound-e, and sound4
which can be traced back to four etymologically different words. /fie
cases of semantic divergence, however, are more doubtful. 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 asunder all ties of etymological kinship
and results in the appearance of two separate words/ In the case of
flower, flour,1 e.g., it is mainly the resultant 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