Phonetic coincidence and semantic differentiation of homonyms

    In summing up this diachronic analysis of homonymy it should be emphasised that there are two ways by which homonyms come into being, namely convergent development of sound form and divergent development of meaning . (in table 2) 

Table II 

Origin of Homonyms 

 
 

The first may consist in

1. phonetic change only,
2. phonetic change combined with loss of affixes,
3. independent formation from homonymous bases by means of homonymous morphemes.

The second, that is divergent development of meaning may be

1. limited within one lexico-grammatical class of words,
2. combined with difference in lexico-grammatical class and therefore difference in grammatical functions and distribution,
3. based on independent formation from the same base by homonymous morphemes.

      The process can sometimes be more complicated. Thus, according to COD, the verb stick developed as a mixture of ME stiken<OE stician<sticca ‘peg’, and ME steken cognate with Greek stigma. At present there are at least two homonyms: stick v ‘to insert pointed things into’, a highly polysemantic word, and the no less polysemantic stick n ‘a rod’.

  In the course of time the number of homonyms on the whole increases, although occasionally the conflict of homonyms ends in word loss [6:169]. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

2.3 Synchronically approach in studying homonyms. 

  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 information retrieval. These problems are: the criteria distinguishing homonymy from polysemy, the formulation of rules for recognising different meanings of the same homonym in terms of distribution, and the description of difference between patterned and non-patterned homonymy. It is necessary to emphasise 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 though in so far as he must construct his speech in a way that would prevent all possible misunderstanding.

  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 one is justified in taking into one entry match, as in football match, and match in meet one’s match ‘one’s equal’. Can the English word bear in bear a burden, bear troubles, bear fruit, bear offspring be viewed as a single word or as a set of two or perhaps even more homonyms? 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 nit, is very vague and hopelessly subjective. 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 our country a different trend has settled. The Anglo-Russian dictionary edited by V.D. Arakin makes nine separate entries with the word right against four items given in the dictionary edited by A.S. Hornby.

  The truth is that there exists no universal criterion for the distinction between polysemy and homonymy, unless one accept the solution offered by V. I. Abayev and follows the data of etymology, separating as homonyms only those words that have different sources and only accidentally coincided phonetically. The necessary restriction is that different sources must be traced within the history of the language. Words that coincided phonetically before they penetrated into the English vocabulary are not taken into account.

  The etymological criterion may 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, if not very rigorous, procedure based on purely synchronic data may be prompted by analysis of dictionary definitions. 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 [9:321]

Consider the following set of examples: 

1.   A child’s voice is heard (Wesker).

 

2.   His voice ... was ... annoyingly well-bred (Cronin).

 

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 form 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.

  Is a lexicographer justified in placing the verb voice with the above meaning into the same entry with the first three variants of the noun? The same question arises with respect to after or before — preposition, conjunction and adverb.

  The elder generation of English lexicographers thought it quite possible for one and the same word to function as different parts of speech. Such pairs as act noun — act verb, back noun — back verb, drive noun — drive verb, the above mentioned after and before and the like, are all treated as one word functioning as different parts of speech. Later on 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? 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, preposition, adv, adjective; act noun, verb; after preposition, adverb, conjunction; age noun, verb; back noun, adverb, verb; ball noun, verb; bank noun, verb; before preposition, adverb, conjunction; besides preposition, adverb; bill noun, verb; bloom noun, verb; box noun, verb. 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. [10:25-30]

  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 verb 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 (singular.) and acts (plural.). 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: Noun+Verb+Noun, Noun+Verb+preposition+Noun, Noun+Verb+Adjective, Noun+Verb+adverb, Noun+ Verb+to+Verb 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+Adjective+Noun.

  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 Noun+laugh+preposition+Noun and so the pattern is in both cases Noun+ Verb+preposition+Noun. In the beginning of the second sentence laugh is a noun and the pattern is article+Adjective+Noun.

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

  Distributional 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 analyse 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 nor mere word-groups but combinations of word classes. Therefore in the process of identification of the symbols given, it is necessary to establish to what classes they belong. As homonymy prevents this, the first step to be taken in machine translation aims at getting rid of homonymy. The system of formal rules aimed at revealing and eliminating lexico-grammatical homonymy in machine translation has been described by T. Moloshnaya. These rules begin with morphological criteria: in the word form considered has an ending typical of one class and impossible in all others, its class is thus determined. Laughed is obviously a verb, as the noun does not take the ending –ed. Of the two homonyms complete v and complete adj only the verb can have such endings as –s,-ed, -ing. When the morphological datd are exhausted, syntactical combinations are analysed.

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 [11:143-146]. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

2.4 Lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical distinctions of homonyms. 

     There is no common opinion on the phenomenon of homonymy in linguistic literature. The content of the phenomenon, its principles of classification and classificatory schemes are being discussed. The most common classification divides homonyms into lexical ones, i.e. referring to the same part of speech, and grammatical (functional) ones, i.e. referring to different parts of speech. In the actual work applied problems of functional homonymy description and methods of automatical disambiguation of functional homonymy of different types are researched. Successfulness of applied research in computer linguistics depends remarkably on the availability of appropriate linguistic resources, lexicographical ones being the most important. In the recent years dictionaries of homonyms of Russian language by different authors have been published. In these dictionaries, the phenomenon of homonymy has been represented with various degree of fullness. The grand problem is mismatch of grammatical descriptions of homonyms in these dictionaries. For example, the comparison of the grammatical descriptions of 560 homonyms terminating on letter 'o' in [1-4] have shown that only three homonyms have been described with the same grammatical features [12:246].

       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 seal2). 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., seal2—'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 classifications: full and partial homonymy and lexical, lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonymy are not mutually exclusive. All homonyms may be described on the basis of the two criteria—homonymy of all forms of the word or only some of the word-forms and the type of meaning in which homonymous words or word-forms differ. So we speak of full lexical homonymy of seen and seal 2 n, of partial lexical homonymy of live and leave, and of partial lexico-grammatical homonymy of seen and seal 3 It should be pointed out that in the some classification discussed above one of Peculiarities the groups, namely lexico-grammatical of Lexico-Grammatical homonymy, is not homogeneous. This can be seen by analyzing the relationship between two pairs of lexico-grammatical homonyms, e.g.