Phonetic coincidence and semantic differentiation of homonyms

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

      The above-described sources of homonyms have one important feature 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.)

       Now we come to a further source of homonyms, which differs essentially from all the above 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.

       From what has been said above about polysemantic words, it should 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. In most cases, the function of the arrangement and the unity if determined by one of the meanings. 

  Fire, noun:

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 word’s semantic structure, associations between the rest of the meanings may be severed, the semantic structure loses its unity and fails into two or more parts which then become accepted as independent lexical units.

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. 

                

      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 very well 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: 

Board, n (development of meanings) 

 

Board I, II, III, n (split of the polysemy) 

 

     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.

       It should be stressed, however, that split of the polysemy as a source of homonyms is not accepted by all scholars. It is really difficult sometimes to decide whether a certain word has or has not been subject 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, as three homonyms in Professor V.D. Arakin’s 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 [5:64]. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

1.3 Classification of homonyms. 

       Various types of classification for homonyms proper have been suggested.

Classification given by A.I. Smirnitsky   

    The one most often used in present-day Anglistics in the Soviet Union is that suggested by professor A. I. Smirnitsky. It has been criticized for failing to pt the homonyms within general vocabulary system.

   The classification, which we have mentioned above, is certainly not precise enough and does not reflect certain important features of these words, and, most important of all, their status as parts of speech. The examples given their show those homonyms may belong to both to the same and to different categories of parts of speech. Obviously, the classification of homonyms should reflect this distinctive feather. 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.

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

     a)   full homonyms

     b)   partial homonyms 

Full homonyms

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

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

     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., past part. 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., past part. of to make)

Left adj

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

Bean n

Been v (past part. of to be)

One num

Won v (past indef., past part. 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) 

       A more 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. For the sake of completeness we shall consider this problem in terms of identity and difference between the elements of vocabulary system because we must define the place of homonyms among other relationships. In a simple code each sign has only one meaning, and each meaning is associated with only one sign. But this ideal, as we have seen, is not realised in natural languages. When several related meanings are associated with the same form, the word is called polysemantic, when two or more unrelated meanings are associated with the same form – the word are homonyms, when two or more forms are associated with the same or nearly the same meaning – the words are synonyms. 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.

    The distinctive features 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” must not be taken too literally. It 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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

  ABCD. Members of the opposition light noun ‘the contrary of darkness’ : : light adjective ‘not heavy’ are different in lexical and grammatical meaning, have different paradigms but the same basic form. The class of partial homonymy is very numerous. A further subdivision might take into consideration the parts of speech to which the members belong, namely the oppositions of noun : : verb, adjective : : verb, noun : : adjective, etc.

  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 noun ‘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 preposition contrasted to for conjunction.

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 noun ‘a leap’ :: spring₂ ‘a source’ :: spring₃ noun ‘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 preposition, before adverb, before conjunction, 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 noun : : eye verb. 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 meaning 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 noun : thought verb (the Past Indefinite Tense of think).

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

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 noun ‘animal’s hide or skin with the hair’; fell₂ noun ‘hill’ and also ‘a stretch of North-English moorland’; fell₃ adjective ‘fierce’ (poet.); fell₄ verb and noun ‘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 [6:160-196].