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: