Homonyms in English and their specific features
/used attributively/, e.g. we can say «a blanket
insurance policy».There are some words in the language which
are monosynaptic, such as most terms, /synonym, molecule, bronchitis,
some pronouns /this, my, both/, numerals, and so like.
There are two processes of the semantic development of a
word: radiation and concatenation. In cases of radiation the primary
meaning stands in the centre and the secondary meanings proceed out
of it like rays. Each secondary meaning can be traced to the primary
meaning. E.g. in the word «face» the primary meaning
denotes «the front part of the human head» Connected with
the front position the meanings: the front part of a watch, the front
part of a building, the front part of a playing card was formed.
Connected with the word «face» itself the meanings:
expression of the face, outward appearance is formed.
In cases of concatenation secondary meanings of a word
develop like a chain. In such cases it is difficult to trace some
meanings to the primary one. E.g. in the word «crust» the
primary meaning «hard outer part of bread» developed a
secondary meaning «hard part of anything /a pie, a cake/»,
then the meaning »harder layer over soft snow» was
developed, then «a sullen gloomy person», then
«impudence» were developed. Here the last meanings have
nothing to do with the primary ones. In such cases homonyms appear in
the language. It is called the split of polysemy.
In most cases in the semantic development of a word both
ways of semantic development are combined.
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.
1. 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.
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 иуецуут
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.
2. 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 express
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
previous three meanings because the fourth meaning of the word
“sound” can not be substituted by the word common to the
previous three meanings of the word “voice” (i.e. the
analyzed meaning of the word "sound").
V. Abaev1) gave etymological
criterion of distinguishing homonymic and polysemantic words. He says
that homonyms are words which have different sources and only
coincided phonetically.
3. 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.
The 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 apprehended by speaker.
It is some times argued that the
difference between related and unrelated polysemantic words is, as a
rule, relatable. It is observed that different meanings have certain
stable relationships which are not to be found between the meanings
of homonymous words. A clearly perceptible connection of such
semantic relationships is commonly found in the meanings of one word
and is considered to be indicative to polysemy. It is also suggested
that the semantic connection may be described in terms of such
features.
For example, we may give the
following word
"face1" - 'the front part
of human's head".
"face2" – “playing card,
building, watches”.
In this example we can find that
meanings form one sensible structure. Another example shares the same
idea:
E.g. The word "fair1" which means
"a person with light hairs" and "fair2"
which means "just, honest". In this example the meanings
except to each other and do not keep the semantic intimacy.
4. 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.
For example, for the word "park1" -
"place of rest" we form a new word by ending “-ed-“:
"parked" while in the word "park2'' - "a
place of keeping automobiles" the new word is formed by “-ing-“
ending : "parking".
6.2.2 Typological analysis of homonymy and polysemy
in three languages
Below we would like to compare the
English differences between homonymy and polysemy with Russian and
Uzbek equivalents.11
As it was noticed above we have polysemy and homonymy in
both Russian and Uzbek. As in English, in Russian and Uzbek homonyms
are words identical in sound and spelling but different in meaning.
For example, "завод1”
- "an industrial undertaking" and "завод2"
- "a device which brings an action of a mechanism".
"o’t1" - "firewood",
"o’t2" - "grass" and "o’t"
- "the verb which means movement".
1) In this chapter we partially used
the materials of the investigations of Prof. Buranov
As in English, in Russian and Uzbek
we correspond to polysemantic words the words which have several
connected meanings.
For example, "кольцо"
- "one of the jewelry things" and "кольцо"
- "a shape
of something, e.g. smoke".
Another example is "ko’z1" - "a part of human's
body" and "ko’z2" - "a sing on wood".
As in, English there is the lexical method of
distinction of polysemy and homonymy is used in Russian and Uzbek in
the same degree.
For example, in Russian the word
"коренной1”
– used in the meaning of "коренной
житель” is referred to its
synonym “исконный,
основной” and
the word "коренной2"
in еру meaning of “коренной
вопрос” corresponds to the
synonym “главный”.
The words “основной”
“главный” used
in this sense are synonymic in their character, so we may conclude,
therefore, that in this example we have two meanings of one word.
The word "худой1"
–used in the meaning of “не упитанный”
is formed in the synonymic row with the adjectives “тощий,
щуплый, сухой”
while the word “худой2”
forms its meaning with the adjectives “плохой”,
“скверный”,
“дурной”. So we can
draw a conclusion that the words “тощий”,
“щуплый” are not
synonyms with the words “плохой”,
“скверный”
So in this case the words “худой1”
and “худой2” are homonyms.
In Uzbek we have the same phenomenon:
For example, the word “dum1” - "a part of animal's
body" and “dum2” "a partial comet".
It means that these two meanings we can be substitutive
with synonymy "the end of the body". It means that these
words are polysemantic in their lexical meaning.
If we take another pair of words,
e.g. "yoz1" - "summer" and "yoz2" -
'the form of the verb which expresses the order".
2. Ethimological method can be shown in the following:
For example, the word “голос1”
used in the meaning of "sounds which are created when we speak",
and the word “голос2” in
the meaning of "sounds which appear in the course of vibration
of humans’ vocal cords" and “голос3”
in the meaning of "to give your vote on election". The
words “голос1”and “голос2”
can be substituted by the synonym common for both these words
-"sound", while the third meaning of this word has nothing
in common with the mentioned synonym. So we are able to draw the
following conclusion: the first mentioned two meanings of the word
“голос” are synonymic to
each other, while the third mentioned meaning is homonymic to the
previous twos.
Such kind of examples we can find in
the Uzbek language as well. For instance, the words “ovoz1”
we can substitute into the synonym "sound" while the word
“ovoz2” in the meaning of “opinion a group of
people” is homonymic to the first one, e.g. “yoshlar
ovozi”.
3. The semantic criterion can also be compared in all
three languages.
For example, in Russian the word
“шляпка1” used in the
meaning of "one of the things of woman's clothes and the word
“шляпка2”used in the
meaning of "the top beginning of a mushroom or a nail" can
be compared as following: these two meanings mean “something
round and located on the top”. So these two meanings are
synonymic between each other.
The same example we can find in
Uzbek. For instance, the word “bosh1”used in the meaning
of "the beginning of human's body" and the word “bosh2”
used in the meaning of “the main person in a work, e.g.”ishning
boshi”. These two meanings are alike because they do the same
function, so they are not homonymic, they are synonyms.
4. Morphological method of distinction of polysemy and
homonymy can also be demonstrated in all the languages compared.
For example, in Russian, the noun
“хлеб1” used in the meaning of
“хлебный злак”
and “хлеб2” used in the meaning
of “пищевой продукт,
выпекаемый
из муки” form the adjective
with the help of the suffix “-н“.
Cf.:
“Хлебные всходы”
and
“Хлебный запах”.
In Uzbek the word “oy1” – e.g. “Yilda
un ikkita oylar bor” and “oy2” – e.g. “oy
– yerning yo’ldoshi” form the new word with the
help of the suffix “lik”:
Cf.: “Oylik maoshi” and “Bir oylik 14
kundan iborat”.
So having analysed the phenomenona of homonymy and
polyseny in the three languages we can draw the following conclusion
to this chapter: there are no so big differences in these languages
in respect to the linguistic phenomena analysed.
However, 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
1.3 Common review of the essence of the work
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..
c) A number of famous linguists dealt with the problem
of homonyms in Modern English. In particular, Profs. A. Buranov and
J.Muminov were the first who dealt with this problem in our Republic,
.Moloshnaya, V.I. Abaev etc.
d) The problem of homonymy is still waiting for its
detail investigation.
2.3 Perspectives of the qualification works
Having 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. We also express our hopes to take this work 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.Buranov, Muminov Readings on
Modern English Lexicology T. O’qituvchi 1985 pp. 34-47
3. Arnold I.V. The English Word M. High School 1986
pp. 143-149
4. O.
Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395-412
5. Jespersen ,Otto. Growth and Structure of the English
Language. Oxford, 1982 pp.246-249
5. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English.
Oxford 1964., pp.147, 167, 171-172
6.V.D. Arakin English Russian
Dictionary M.Russky Yazyk 1978 pp. 23-24, 117-119, 133-134
7.Abayev V.I. Homonyms T. O’qituvchi 1981 pp.
4-5, 8, 26-29
8.Smirnitsky A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977
pp.57-59,89-90
9. Dubenets E.M. Modern English
Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State Teacher Training
University Publishers 2004 pp.17-31
10. Akhmanova O.S. Lexicology: Theory and Method. M.
1972 pp. 59-66
12. Burchfield R.W. The English Language. Lnd. ,1985
pp45-47
13. Canon G. Historical Changes and English
Wordformation: New Vocabulary items. N.Y., 1986. p.284
14. Howard Ph. New words for Old. Lnd., 1980. p.311
15. Halliday M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotics. Social
Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Lnd., 1979.p.53,112
16. Potter S. Modern Linguistics. Lnd., 1957 pp.37-54
17. Schlauch, Margaret. The English Language in Modern
Times. Warszava, 1965. p.342
18. Sheard, John. The Words we Use. N.Y..,1954.p.3
19. Maurer D.W. , High F.C. New Words
- Where do they come from and where do they go. American
Speech., 1982.p.171
20. Aпресян
Ю.Д.Лексическая
семантика.
Омонимические
средства языка.
М.1974. стр.46
21. Беляева
Т.М., Потапова
И.А. Английский
язык за