1.1. The undertakings and intents of the work
2.1. The chief points of the work
II. Main Part
1.2. Chapter1 Common analysis of homonyms in Modern English
1.1.2. Phonetic happenstance and semantic distinction of homonyms
2.1.2. Categorization of homonyms
3.1.2. Diachronically attack of homonyms
4.1.2. Synchronically approach in analyzing homonymy
5.1.2. Lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical differentiations of homonyms
2.2. Chapter2. The interrelatednesss between homonymy and polysemous words.
1.2.2. Etymological and semantic standards in lexical ambiguity and homonymy
2.2.2. Comparative typological analysis of two lingual phenomena in English, Uzbek and Russian
3.2.2. Modern methods of look intoing homonyms
4.2.2. Practical attack in analyzing homonyms
5.2.2.Polysemy and Homonymy: Etymological and Semantic Standards
6.2.2. Typological analysis of homonymy and lexical ambiguity in three linguistic communications.
1.3. Common reappraisal of the kernel of the work
2.3. Positions of the making work
1.1 The undertakings and intents of the work
The subject of my making work sounds as following: “ Homonyms in English and their Specific Features ” . This making work can be characterized by the followers:
The actuality of this work caused by several of import points.
We seem to state that the visual aspect of new, homonymous significances is one of the chief tendencies in development of Modern English, particularly in its conversational bed, which, in its bend at high grade is supported by development of modern informational engineerings and simplification of alive address. So the significance of our work can be proved by the undermentioned grounds:
a ) Perusal of homonyms of words is one of the developing subdivisions of lexicology presents.
B ) Homonyms reflect the general tendency of simplification of a linguistic communication.
degree Celsius ) Homonymic significances of words are closely connected with the development of modern informational engineerings.
vitamin D ) Bing a developing subdivision of linguistics it requires a particular attending of instructors to be adequated to their specialisation in English.
vitamin E ) The probe of homonyms and their distinction with polysemous words is non being still investigated in the sufficient grade and this job is still waiting for its research worker. Our making work is one another effort to look into this job.
Having based upon the actuality of the subject we are able to explicate the general ends of our making work.
a ) To analyze, analyse, and sum up all the possible alterations happened in the studied subdivision of linguistics for the past 50 old ages.
B ) To learn the job of homonyms to immature English scholars.
degree Celsius ) To show the significance of the job for those who want to brush up their English.
vitamin D ) To advert all the major linguists ’ sentiments refering the topic studied.
If we say about the new information used within our work we may observe that the work surveies the job from the modern places and analyzes the modern tendencies appeared in this topic for the last 10 old ages. In peculiar, the new significances of the old accustomed words were mentioned in our making work.
The practical significance of the work can be concluded in the undermentioned points:
a ) The work could function as a good beginning of larning English by immature instructors at schools and colleges.
B ) The lexicographers could happen a batch of interesting information for themselves.
degree Celsius ) Those who would wish to pass on with the English-speaking people through the Internet will happen new doing homonymous footings in our making work.
Having said about the linguists studied the stuff before we can advert that our making work was based upon the probes made by a figure of good known English, Russian and Uzbek lexicologists as A.I.Smirnitsky, B.A. Ilyish, N.Buranov, V.V. Vinogradov, O.Jespersen and some others.
If we say about the methods of scientific attacks used in our work we can advert that the method of typological analyses was used.
The newality of the work is concluded in including the new homonymous significances of words appeared during for the last 10 old ages by agencies of development and applying of the cyberspace engineerings.
The general construction of our making work looks as follows:
The work is composed onto three major parts: debut, chief portion and decision. Each portion has its subdivision onto the specific thematically points. There are two points in the introductory portion: the first point Tells about the general content of the work while the other gives us the general account of the lexicological phenomenon of homonymy in a linguistic communication. The chief portion bears two chapters itself which, in their bend, are subdivided onto several specific points. The first chapter it explains the common analysis of homonyms in Modern English. Here we analyzed phonic happenstance and semantic distinction of homonyms in Modern English ( the first point ) , recognized categorization of the homonymous units of a linguistic communication ( the 2nd point ) , historical and synchronous research to the job studied ( 3rd and 4th points later ) . The 2nd chapter shows the interrelatednesss between homonyms and polysemous words. In the first point we made the etymological and semantic standards of distinguishing of homonyms and polysemous words in the English linguistic communication. The 2nd point of the work shows the typological analysis of the two lingual phenomena in the three linguistic communications compared: English, Russian and Uzbek. The 3rd and the 4th points summarize the thoughts refering the modern methods and practical attacks in look intoing the lingual phenomenon of homonyms and polysemous words.
The decision of the making work sums up the thoughts discussed in the chief portion ( the first point ) and shows the ways of implying of the making work ( in the 2nd point ) .
2.1. The chief points of the work.
Wordss indistinguishable in sound-form but different in significance are traditionally termed homonymic.
Modern English is exceptionally rich in homonymic words and word-forms. It is held that languages where short words abound have more homonyms than those where longer words are prevailing. Therefore it is sometimes suggested that copiousness of homonyms in Modern English is to be accounted for by the monosyllabic construction of the commonly used English words.1
Not merely words but other lingual units may be homonymic. Here, nevertheless, we are concerned with the homonymy of words and word-forms merely, so we shall non touch upon the job of homonymic affixes or homonymic phrases. When analysing different instances of homonymy we find that some words are homonymic in all their signifiers, i.e. homonymy of the paradigms of two or more different words as, e.g. , in seal! — ‘a sea animate being ‘ and seal2— ‘a design printed on paper by agencies of a cast ‘ . The paradigm “ seal, seal ‘s, seals, seals ‘ ” is indistinguishable for both of them and gives no indica ; tion of whether it is sea or seal that we are analysing. In other instances, e.g. seal — ‘a sea animate being ‘ and ( to ) seal — ‘to near tightly ‘ , we see that although some single word-forms are homonymic, the whole of the paradigm is non indistinguishable. Compare, for case, the paradigms:
|seal||( to ) seal3|
|seals ‘||waterproofing, etc|
It is easy observed that merely some of the word-forms ( e.g. seal, seals, etc. ) are homonymic, whereas others ( e.g. sealed, sealing ) are non. In such instances we can non talk of homonymic words but merely of homonymy of single word-forms or of partial homonymy. This is true of a figure of other instances, e.g. compare find [ famdj, found [ faund ] , found [ faund ] and found [ faundj, founded [ ‘faundidj, founded [ faundid ] ; cognize [ nou ] , knows Jnouz ] , knew [ nju: ] , and no [ nou ] ; nose [ nouz ] , noses [ nouzizj ; new [ nju: J in which partial homonymy is observed. Consequently all instances of homonymy may be classified into full and partial homonymy, homonymy of words and homonymy of single word-forms.
1 )Professor 0. Jespersen calculated that there are approximately four times as many monosyllabic as polysyllabic homonyms. 0. Jespersen. Linguistics. Copenhagen-London, J933, p. 398.
1.1.2 Words indistinguishable in sound-form but different in significance are traditionally termed homonymic
Modern English is exceptionally rich in homonymic words and word-forms. It is held that languages where short words abound have more homonyms than those where longer words are prevailing. Therefore it is sometimes suggested that copiousness of homonyms in Modern English is to be accounted for by the monosyllabic construction of the commonly used English words.
Not merely words but other lingual units may be homonymic. Here, nevertheless, we are concerned with the homonymy of words and word-forms merely, so we shall non touch upon the job of homonymic affixes or homonymic phrases When analysing different instances of homonymy we find that some words are homonymic in all their signifiers, i.e. we observe full homonymy of the paradigms of two or more different words as, e.g. , in seal a sea animate being and seal — a design printed on paper by agencies of a cast ‘ . The paradigm “ seal, seal ‘s, seals, seals ‘ ” is indistinguishable for both of them and gives no indicant of whether it is seal ( 1 ) or seal ( 2 ) that we are analysing. In other instances, e.g. seal — a sea animate being ‘ and ( to ) seal ( 3 ) — ‘to near tightly, we see that although some single word-forms are homonymic, the whole of the paradigm is non indistinguishable. Compare, for case, the-paradigms:
1. ( to ) seal-seal-seal’s-seals-seals ‘
2. seal-seals-sealed-sealing, etc.
1 Professor O. Jespersen1 )calculated that there are approximately four times as many monosyllabic as polysyllabic homonyms. It is easy observed that merely some of the word-forms ( e.g. seal, seals, etc. ) are homonymic, whereas others ( e.g. sealed, sealing ) are non. In such instances we can non talk of homonymic words but merely of homonymy of single word-forms or of partial homonymy. This is true of a figure of other instances, e.g. compare find [ faind ] , found [ faund ] , found [ faund ] and found [ faund ] , founded [ ‘faundidj, founded [ faundid ] ; cognize [ nou ] , knows [ nouz ] , knew [ nju: ] , and no [ nou ] ; nose [ nouz ] , noses [ nouziz ] ; new [ nju: ] in which partial homonymy is observed.
From the illustrations of homonymy discussed above it follows that the majority of full homonyms are to be found within the same parts of address ( e.g. seal ( 1 ) N — seal ( 2 ) N ) , partial homonymy as a regulation is observed in word-forms belonging to different parts of address ( e.g. seal n — seal V ) . This is non to state that partial homonymy is impossible within one portion of address. For case in the instance of the two verbs Me [ lai ] — ‘to be in a horizontal or resting place ‘ — lies [ laiz ] — lay [ lei ] — lain [ lein ] and prevarication [ lai ] — ‘to do an untrue statement ‘ — lies [ laiz ] — lied [ laid ] — lied [ set ] we besides find partial homonymy as merely two word-forms [ lai ] , [ laiz ] are homonymic, all other signifiers of the two verbs are different. Cases of full homonymy may be found in different parts of address as, e.g. , for [ for ] — preposition, for [ field-grade officer: ] — concurrence and four [ field-grade officer: ] — numerical, as these parts of address have no other word-forms.
2.1.2 Categorization of homonyms
Modern English has a really extended vocabulary ; the figure of words harmonizing to the dictionary information is no less than 400, 000.A inquiry of course arises whether this tremendous word-stock is composed of separate independent lexical units, or may it possibly be regarded as a certain structured system made up of legion interdependent and interconnected sub-systems or groups of words. This job may be viewed in footings of the possible ways of sorting vocabulary points. Wordss can be classified in assorted ways. Here, nevertheless, we are concerned merely with the semantic categorization of words which gives us a better penetration into some facets of the Modern English word-stock. Attempts to analyze the interior construction of the vocabulary revealed that in malice of its heterogeneousness the English word-stock may be analyzed into legion sub-systems the members of which have some characteristics in common, therefore separating them from the members of other lexical sub-systems. Classification into monosynaptic and polysemous words is based on the figure of significances the word possesses. More elaborate semantic categorizations are by and large based on the semantic similarity ( or mutual opposition ) of words or their component morphemes. Below we give a brief study of some of these lexical groups of current usage both in theoretical probe and practical class-room instruction.
3.1.2 Diachronically attack of homonyms
Now allow us analyse the semantic similarity of morphemes. Lexical groups composed of words with semantically and phonemically indistinguishable root-morphemes are normally described as word-families or word-clusters. The term itself implies near links between the members of the group. Such are word-families of the type: lead, leader, leading ; dark, darken, darkness ; signifier, formal, formality, and others. It should be noted that members of a word-family as a regulation belong to different parts of address and are joined together merely by the individuality of root-morphemes. In the word-families discussed above the root-morphemes are indistinguishable non merely in intending but besides in sound-form [ 1 ]. There are instances, nevertheless, when the sound-form of root-morphemes may be different, as for illustration in Sun, sunny, solar ; oral cavity, unwritten, orally ; brother, brotherly, fraternal, etc. ; their semantic similarity nevertheless, makes it possible to include them in a word-family. In such instances it is usual to talk of lexical supplementation, i.e. formation of related words of a word-family from phonemically different roots. As a regulation in the word-families of this type we are likely to meet etymologically different words, e.g. the words brother and oral cavity are of Germanic beginning, whereas fraternal and unwritten can be easy traced back to Latin. We often find synonymic braces of the type fatherly — paternal, brotherly — fraternal. Semantic and phonemic individuality of affixation morphemes can be observed in the lexical groups of the type darkness, inventiveness, composure, etc. ; teacher, reader, author, etc. In such word-groups as, e.g. instructor, physician, instrumentalist, etc. , merely semantic similarity of derivational affixes is ascertained. As derivational affixes impart to the words a certain generalised significance, we may individual out lexical groups denoting the agent, the actor of the action ( Nomina Agenti ) — teacher, reader, physician, etc. or lexical groups denoting actions [ Nomina
Acti ] — motion, transmutation, and others.
Now we shall analyze the semantic similarities and mutual oppositions of words. Semantic similarity or mutual opposition of words may be observed in the similarity of their denotational or intension significance. Similarity or mutual opposition of the denotational constituent of lexical significance is to be found in lexical groups of equivalent word and opposite word. Similarity or mutual opposition of the intension components serves as the footing for stylistic stratification of vocabulary units. Stylistic characteristics of words and jobs of stylistic stratification in general were discussed in connexion with different types of significance. So here allow us restrict ourselves chiefly to the treatment of the jobs of the chief word phenomena incorporating the English word stock: i.e. we mean synonyms and opposite word.
4.1.2 Synchronically attack in analyzing homonyms
Synonymy, lexical ambiguity and homonymy in the linguistic communication hierarchy are normally felt to be correlate impressions: foremost because the standard of synonymity is semantic similarity which is in exact resistance to the standard of opposite word — semantic mutual opposition. Second, because equivalent word and polysemous words seem to overlap in a figure of instances. For case, when we speak of the words “ daddy ” and “ parent ” as equivalent word, we do so because of the similarity of their denotational significance and mutual opposition of their stylistic mention ( californium. daddy — colloquial, parent — bookish ) .
The job of synonymity is treated similarity otherwise by different linguists. The most problematic job is the definition of equivalent word. Synonyms are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but indistinguishable or similar in significance. This definition has been badly criticized on many points. First it seems impossible to talk of indistinguishable or similar significance of words as such, as this portion of the definition can non be applied to polysemous words. It is impossible that polysemous words could be synonymous in all their significances. The verb “ look ” , for case, is normally treated as a equivalent word of the undermentioned words: ” see ” , “ ticker ” , “ observe ” , etc. , but in another of its significances it is non synonymous with this group of words but instead with the verbs seems, look ( californium. to look at smb. and to look pale ) . The figure of synonymic sets of a polysemantism word tends as a regulation to be equal to the figure of single significances the word possesses.
5.1.2. Lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical
In the treatment of lexical ambiguity and context we have seen that one of the ways of know aparting between different significances of a word is the reading of these significances in footings of their equivalent word, e.g. the two significances of the adjectival handsome are synonymously interpreted as fine-looking — ‘beautiful ‘ ( normally about work forces ) and fine-looking — ‘considerable, ample ‘ ( about amounts, sizes, etc. ) .
Second it seems impossible to ” speak of individuality or similarity of lexical significance as a whole as it is merely the indication constituent that may be described as indistinguishable or similar. If we analyses words that are normally considered synonymous, e.g. to decease, to go through off ; to get down, to get down, etc. , we find that the intension constituent or, to be more exact, the stylistic mention of these words is wholly different and it is merely the similarity of the indication significance that makes them synonymous. The words, e.g. to decease, to walk, to smile, etc. , may be considered indistinguishable as to their stylistic mention or affectional charge, but as there is no similarity of indication significance they are ne’er felt as synonymous words.
Third it does non look possible to talk of individuality of significance as a standard of synonymity as individuality of significance is really rare even among monosynaptic words. In fact, instances of complete synonymities are really few and are, as a regulation, confined to proficient terminologies where we can happen monosynaptic footings wholly indistinguishable in significances as, for illustration, fricative consonant and continuant in phonetics. Wordss in synonymic sets are in general differentiated because of some component of resistance in each member of the set. The word handsome, e.g. , is distinguished from its equivalent word beautiful chiefly because the former implies the beauty of a male individual or loosely talking merely of human existences, whereas beautiful is opposed to it as holding no such limitations in its semantic construction [ 2 ].Thus it seems necessary to modify the traditional definition and to word it as follows: equivalent word are words different in sound-form but similar in their denotational significance or significances. Synonymous relationship is observed merely between similar denotational significances of phonemically different words.Differentiation of equivalent word may be observed in different semantic constituents — denotational or intension.
It should be noted, nevertheless, that the difference in indication significance can non transcend certain bounds and is found merely as a fluctuation of some common denotational constituent. The verbs expression, seem, appear, e.g. , are viewed as members of one synonymic set as all three of them possess a common denotational semantic constituent “ to be in one ‘s position ” . Semantic similarity of affixation morphemes is treated in more item in the chapter about Word-Formation in Prof. Ginsburg ’ s textbook on lexicology, judgement, but non needfully in fact ” and come into comparing in this significance ( californium. he seems ( expressions ) ( appears ) tired ) . A more elaborate analysis shows that there is a certain difference in the significance of each verb: seem suggests a personal sentiment based on grounds ( e.g. nil seems right when one is out of kinds ) ; look implies that sentiment is based on a ocular feeling ( e.g. the metropolis looks its worst in March ) , appear sometimes suggests a deformed feeling ( e.g. the scene Sun made the steeples appear ablaze ) . Thus similarity of denotational significance of all members of the synonymic series is combined with a certain difference in the significance of each member. [ 3 ]
It follows that relationship of synonymity implies certain differences in the denotational significance of equivalent word. In this connexion a few words should be said about the traditional categorization of vocabulary units into ideographic and stylistic equivalent word. This categorization returns from the premise that equivalent word may differ either in the denotational significance ( ideographic equivalent word ) or the intension significance, i.e. stylistic mention ( stylistic equivalent word ) . This premise can non be accepted as synonymous words ever differ in the denotational constituent irrespective of the individuality or difference of stylistic mention. The stylistic mention in the synonymous verbs seem, appear, look may be regarded as indistinguishable though we observe some difference in their denotational constituent. Difference in the denotational semantic constituent is besides found in synonymous words possessing different connotative of constituents. The verbs see and lay eyes on, e.g. , are normally treated as stylistic equivalent word ; see is stylistically impersonal and behold is described as studious or poetic. It can be readily observed, nevertheless, that the difference between the two verbs is non confined entirely to stylistic mention. Though they have a common denotational constituent ‘to take awareness of something by physical ( or mental ) vision ‘ , there is a pronounced difference in their comparable significances. The verb behold suggests merely ‘looking at that which is seen ‘ , e.g. “ behold them sitting in their glorification ” ( Shelley ) , The verb see denotes ‘have or use power of sight ‘ ( e.g. the blind can non see ) , ‘understand ‘ ( e.g. do n’t you see my intending? ) , have knowledge or experience of ( e.g. he has seen a good trade in his long life ) and others.
Consequently, the interrelatedness of the denotational and the connotative of significance of equivalent word is instead complex. Difference or instead fluctuation of the denotational constituent does non connote difference in either the stylistic mention or the affectional charge of members of synonymic series. Difference of the connotative of semantic constituent is constantly accompanied by some fluctuation of the denotational significance of equivalent word. Therefore it would be more consistent to subdivide synonymous words into strictly ideographic ( denotational ) and ideographic-stylistic equivalent word. It should be pointed out that neither standard the traditional definition of equivalent word modified version suggested here supply for any nonsubjective standard of similarity of significance. Judgment as to semantic similarity is based entirely on the lingual intuition of the analyst. [ 4 ]
It is sometimes argued that the significance of two words is indistinguishable if they can denote the same referent, in other words, if an object or a certain category of objects can ever be denoted by either of the two words. For illustration in the sentence “ Washington is the capital of the United States ” — ” Washington ” and “ the capital of the United States ” have evidently the same referent, but there is no lingual relationship of synonymity between the two lexical units.
Recently efforts have been made to present into the definition of synonymity the standard of exchangeability in lingual contexts. It is argued that for the lingual similarity of intending implies that the words are synonymous if either of them can happen in the same context. In this instance the relationship of synonymity is defined as follows: “ If A and B have about indistinguishable environment except chiefly for sentences which contain both, we say they are synonyms ” ( californium. eye-doctor, optometrist ) .
Another well-known definition besides continuing from the contextual attack is the definition of equivalent word as words which can replace each other in any given context without the slightest change either in the denotational or connotative of significance.
The contextual attack besides invites unfavorable judgment as words interchangeable in any given context are seldom found. This fact may be explained as follows: foremost, words synonymous in some lexical contexts may expose no synonymy in others. As one of the English bookmans competently comments, the comparing of the sentences “ the rainfall in April was unnatural ” and “ the rainfall in April was exceeding ” may give us evidences for presuming that exceeding and unnatural are synonymous. The same adjectives in a different context are by no agencies synonymous, as we may see by comparing “ my boy is exceeding ” and “ my boy is unnatural ” . [ 5 ]
Second, it is apparent that exchangeability entirely can non function as a standard of synonymy. Werner safely assumes that equivalent word are words interchangeable in some contexts. But the contrary is surely non true as semantically different words of the same portion of address are, as a regulation, interchangeable in rather a figure of contexts. For illustration, in the sentence “ I saw a small girl playing in the garden ” the adjectival small may be officially replaced by a figure of semantically different adjectives, e.g. reasonably, tall, English, etc.
Therefore a more acceptable definition of equivalent word seems to be the followers:
equivalent word are words different in their sound-form, but similar in their denotational significance or significances and interchangeable at least in some contexts.
Theoretically, the grade of synonymy of words may be calculated by the figure of contexts in which these words are interchangeable. The simplest technique of such semantic analysis is permutation in assorted contexts. It is argued that two synonymous adjectives, e.g. deep and profound, could be analyzed in relation to each other by determining how far they are interchangeable in different contexts, say, in combination with H2O, voice, comment, alleviation ; what changes of denotational significance and affectional charge occur when they are interchanged ( californium. deep alleviation — profound alleviation ) ; what is their proper opposite word in each of these combinations ( shoal, high, superficial ) ; in how many of the possible contexts they are interchangeable without any considerable change of the denotational significance, etc.
The English word-stock is highly rich. Synonymic accounted for by abundant borrowing. ‘ ” English Quite a figure of words in a synonymic set are normally of Latin or Gallic beginning. For case, out of 13 words doing up the set see, lay eyes on, descry, espy, position, study, contemplate, observe, notice, comment, note, discern, perceive merely see and lay eyes on can be traced back to Old English ( OE. seen and decapitating ) , all others are either Gallic or Latin adoptions [ 6 ].
Therefore, a characteristic form of English synonymic sets is the form including the indigen and the borrowed words. Among the best investigated are the so called double-scale forms: native versus Latin ( e.g. bodily — bodily, brotherly — fraternal ) ; native versus Greek or French ( e.g. reply — answer, fiddle — fiddle ) . In most instances the equivalent word differ in their stylistic mention, excessively. The native word is normally conversational ( e.g. bodily, brotherly ) , whereas the borrowed word may as a regulation be described as studious or extremely literary ( e.g. bodily, fraternal ) .
Side by side with this form at that place exists in English a subordinate one based on a triple-scale of equivalent word: native — Gallic and Latin or Greek [ e.g. Begin ( start ) — commence ( Fr. ) — novice ( / . ) ; rise — saddle horse ( Fr. ) — ascend ( / , ) ] . In most of these sets the native equivalent word is felt as more conversational, the Latin or Greek one is characterized by studious stylistic mention, whereas the Gallic bases between the two extremes.
There are some minor points of involvement that should be discussed in connexion with the job of synonymity. It has frequently been found that subjects outstanding in the involvements of a community tend to pull a big figure of equivalent word. It is common cognition that in Beowulf there are 37 equivalent word for hero or prince and at least a twelve for conflict and battle. The same heroic poem contains 17 looks for sea to which 13 more may be added from other English verse forms of that period. In Modern American English there are at least 20 words used to denote money: beans, vaulting horses, the french friess, do-re-mi, the needed, wherewithal, etc. This lingual phenomenon is normally described as the jurisprudence of synonymic attractive force,
It has besides been observed that when a peculiar word is given a transferred significance its synonyms tend to develop along parallel lines. We know that in early New English the verb overlook was employed in the significance of ‘look with an evil oculus upon, cast a enchantment over ‘ from which there developed the significance ‘deceive ‘ first recorded in 1596. Precisely half a century subsequently we find oversee a equivalent word of overlook employed in the significance of ‘deceive’.1 This signifier of analogy active in the semantic development of equivalent word is referred to as “ radiation of equivalent word ” .
1.2.2 Etymological and semantic standards in lexical ambiguity and homonymy
As it was mentioned earlier, two or more words indistinguishable in sound and spelling but different in significance, distribution and ( in many instances ) beginning are called homonyms. The term is derived from Greek ( homos ‘similar ‘ and onoma ‘name ‘ ) and therefore expresses really good the sameness of name combined with the difference in significance.
There is an obvious difference between the significances of the symbol fast in such combinations as tally fast ‘quickly ‘ and stand fast ‘firmly ‘ . The difference is even more marked if we observe instances where fast is a noun or a verb as in the undermentioned Proverbs: A clean fast is better than a soiled breakfast ; Who feasts boulder clay he is ill, must fast boulder clay he is good.
Fast as an stray word, hence, may be regarded as a variable that can presume several different values depending on the conditions of use, or, in other words, distribution. All the possible values of each lingual mark are listed in lexicons. It is the responsibility of lexicologists to specify the boundaries of each word, i.e. to distinguish homonyms and to unify discrepancies make up one’s minding in each instance whether the different significances belong to the same polysemous word or whether there are evidences to handle them as two or more separate words indistinguishable in signifier. In address, nevertheless, merely one ° f all the possible values is determined by the context, so that no ambiguity may usually originate. There is no danger, for case that the hearer would wish to replace the significance ‘quick ‘ into the sentence: It is absurd to hold difficult and fast regulations about anything or believe that fast regulations here are ‘rules of diet ‘ . Combinations when two or more significances are possible are either calculated wordplaies, or consequence from sloppiness. Both significances of liver, i.e. ‘a populating individual ‘ and ‘the organ that secretes bile ‘ are, for case, deliberately present in the undermentioned drama upon words: “ 7s life worth populating? ” “ It depends upon the liver. ”
Very rarely can ambiguity of this sort interfere with apprehension. The undermentioned illustration quoted from prevarications, 1 sound slightly unreal, but may him besides a deliberate gag and non sloppiness: The misss will be playing cricket in white stockings. We hope they wo n’t acquire excessively many tallies. Runs in this context may intend either ‘ladders in stockings ‘ or ‘the units of marking, made by running one time over a certain class ‘ ( a cricket term ) .
Homonymy exists in many linguistic communications, but in English it is peculiarly frequent, particularly among monosyllabic words. In the list of 2540 homonyms given in the Oxford English Dictionary 89 % are monosyllabic words and merely 9,1 % are words of two syllables. From the point of view of their morphological construction, they are largely one-morpheme words. Many words, particularly those characterized by a high frequence evaluation, are non connected with significance by a one-to-one relationship. On the contrary, one symbol as a regulation serves to render several different significances. The phenomenon may be said to be the contrary of synonymity where several symbols correspond to one significance.
2.2.2 Comparative typological analysis of two lingual phenomena in English, Russian and Uzbek
The most widely accepted categorization is that acknowledging homonyms proper, homophones and homographs. Homonyms proper are words indistinguishable in pronunciation and spelling, like/as if and liver above or like scale ‘one of the thin home bases that form the outer covering of most fishes and reptilians ‘ and graduated table, ‘a footing for a system of mensurating ‘ . Homophones are words of the same sound but of different spelling and significance: air: : inheritor ; weaponries: : alms ; bargain: : pass: by ; him: : anthem ; knight: : dark ; non: : knot ; or: : ore: : oar ; piece ; peace ; rain: : reign ; aroma: : cent: : sent ; steel: : bargain ; storey ; : narrative write: : right: : rite and many others.
For illustration, in the sentence “ The millwright on my right thinks it right that some conventional rite should typify the right of every adult male to compose as he pleases. ” the sound complex [ rait ] is noun, adjectival, adverb and verb, has four different spellings and six different significances [ 7 ].
The difference may be confined to the usage of a capital missive as in measure and Bill, in the undermentioned illustration: “ How much is my milk measure? ” “ Excuse me, Madam, but my name is John. ” Homographs are words different in sound and in intending but by chance indistinguishable in spelling: bow [ bou ] : : bow IbauJ ; lead [ Li: vitamin D ] : : lead [ led ] ; row [ rouj: : row [ rau ] ; sewer I’soua ] : : cloaca [ sjual ; tear [ tea ] : : rupture [ transient ischemic attack ] ; wind [ air current ] : : air current [ wand ] and many more.
It has been frequently argued that homographs constitute a phenomenon that should
be kept apart from homonymy as the object of linguistics is sound linguistic communication. This point of view cans barely be accepted. Because of the effects of instruction and civilization written English is a generalised national signifier of look. An mean talker does non divide the written and unwritten signifier. On the reverse he is more likely to analyse the words in Terries of letters than in footings 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 analysing instances of individuality of signifier and diverseness of content. [ 8 ]
Assorted types of categorization for homonyms proper have been suggested. The one most frequently used in contemporary Annalistic in Russia it is that suggested by Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky1 ) . It has been criticized for neglecting to convey out the chief characteristic characteristics of homonyms.
A more comprehensive system may be worked out on the same footing if we are guided by the theory of resistances and in sorting the homonyms take into consideration the difference or sameness in their lexical and grammatical significance, paradigm and basic signifier. The typical characteristics shown in the tabular array on lexical significance ( different denoted by A, or about same denoted by A cubic decimeter ) grammatical significance ( different denoted by B, or same denoted by B ) , paradigm ( different denoted by C or same denoted by C ) , and basic signifier ( different D and same D ) .
The term “ about same lexical significance ” must non he taken excessively literally. It means merely that the corresponding members of the resistance have some of import invariant constituents in common. “ Same grammatical significance ” implies that both members belong to the same portion of address.
Same paradigm comprises besides instances when there is merely one word signifier, i.e. when the words are unchangeable. Inconsistent combinations of characteristics are crossed out in the tabular array. It is, for case, impossible for two words to be indistinguishable in all word signifiers and different in basic signifiers, or for two homonyms to demo no difference either in lexical or grammatical significance, because in this instance they are non homonyms. That leaves seven possible categories.
ABCD, Members of the resistance “ light ” ( noun ) – “ light ” ( adjectival ) are different in lexical and grammatical significance, have different paradigms but the same basic signifier. The category is really legion. A farther subdivision might take into consideration the parts of address to which the members belong, viz. the resistances of noun vs. verb, adjectival vs. verb, noun vs. adjectival, etc.
ABCD. Same as above, merely non both members are in their basic signifier. The noun ( here might ) is in its basic signifier, the singular, but the verb will co-occur with it merely in the Past Tense. This deficiency of happenstance between basic signifiers is non frequent, so merely few illustrations are possible.
Cf. besides “ spot ” ( noun ) – ‘a little piece ‘ and “ spot ” – Past Tense and Participle II of “ bite ” .
ABCD, Represents pairs different in lexical and grammatical significance but non in paradigm, as these are non mutable words. For illustration, “ for ” ( preposition ) contrasted to “ for ” – concurrence.
ABCD. Patterned homonymy.1 Differs from the old ( i.e. ABGD ) in the presence of some common constituent in the lexical significance of the members, some lexical invariant:
For illustration, the word “ before ” has the undermentioned lexical annulments: “ before ” ( prep. ) , “ before ” ( adv ) , “ before ” ( conj. ) , though they all express some precedence in sequence. This type of resistance is regular among form words.
ABCD. Contains all the instances due to transition:
For illustration, “ oculus ” ( noun ) vs. “ oculus ” ( verb ) . These members differ in grammatical significance and paradigm. It should be borne in head that they besides belong to patterned homonymy. Examples of such noun-to-verb or verb-to-noun homonymy can be augmented about indefinitely The significance of the 2nd can ever be guessed if the first is known.
ABCD. Different lexical significance, same grammatical significance ; and different paradigm:
e.g. lie ~ ballad ~ lain and lie – lied – lied in many instances belong to this group. We should besides underscore the constellation of instances of dual plural
californium. : “ mastermind ” – “ geniuses ” and “ mastermind ” – “ genii ” .
ABCD. The most typical instance of homonymy accepted by everybody and exemplified in every text edition. Different lexical significances but the homonyms belong to the same portion of address: For illustration, the word “ spring ” can be understood as a spring, “ spring ” as a beginning and “ spring ” as the season in which flora begins.
It goes without stating that this is a theoretical account that gives a general strategy. Actually, a group of homonyms may incorporate members belonging to different groups in this categorization.
3.2.2 Modern methods of look intoing homonyms
The intense development of homonymy in the English linguistic communication is evidently due non to one individual factor but to several interconnected causes, such as the monosyllabic character of English and its analytic construction. Inflections have about disappeared in contemporary English and have been superseded by separate words of abstract character ( prepositions, aides, etc. ) saying the dealingss that one time expressed by expirations. [ 9 ]
The copiousness of homonyms is besides closely connected with a characteristic characteristic of the English linguistic communication as the phonic integrity of word and root or, in other words, the predomination of signifiers among the most frequent roots. It is really obvious that the frequence of words bases in some opposite relationship to length, the monosyllabic words will be the most frequent furthermore, as the most frequent words are besides extremely polysemous, It is merely natural that they develop significances which in the class of clip may divert really far from the cardinal 1. When the inter-mediate links fall out, some of these new significances lose all with the remainder of the construction and get down a separate being. Phenomenon is known as decomposition or split of lexical ambiguity, Different causes by which homonymy may be brought approximately subdivided into two chief groups:
1 ) Homonymy through convergent sound development, when or three words of different beginning by chance coincide in sound ;
2 ) Homonymy developed from lexical ambiguity through divergent development. Both may be combined with loss of terminations and 0tJier morphological procedures.
In Old English the words “ gesund ” – ‘healthy ‘ and “ sund ” – ‘swimming ‘ were separate words both in signifier and in significance. In the class of clip they have changed their significance and phonic signifier, and for latter by chance coincided: OE “ sund ” in ME “ sound ” ‘strait ’ . The group was joined besides by chance by the noun sound ‘what is or may be heard ‘ with the matching verb that developed from Gallic and finally the Latin word “ sonus ” , and the verb sound ‘to step the deepness ‘ of doubtful etymology. The happenstance is strictly inadvertent.
Two different Latin verbs: “ cadere ” -‘to carnival and “ capere ” – ‘to clasp ‘ are the several beginnings of the homonyms In case1 ‘instance of thing ‘s happening ‘ and instance a box. Homonymy of this type is universally recognized. The other type is unfastened to treatment.
Unlike the homonyms instance and sound all the homonyms of the box group due to decomposition or split of lexical ambiguity are etymologically connected. The sameness of signifier is non inadvertent but based on familial relationship. They are all derived from one another and are all finally traced to the Latin “ buxus ” . The Concise Oxford Dictionary1 )has five separate entries for box: 1.box n. – ‘a sort of little evergreen bush ‘ ;
2. box n. ‘receptacle made of wood, composition board, metal, etc. and normally provided with a palpebra ‘ ;
3. box v. ‘to put into a box ‘ ;
4. box n. ‘slap with the manus on the ear ‘ ;
5. boxt v. ‘ a sport term intending ‘to fight with fists in cushioned baseball mitts ‘ . [ 10 ]
Such homonyms may be partially derived from one another but their common point of beginning lies beyond the bounds of the English linguistic communication. In these with the visual aspect of a new significance, really different from the old one, the semantic construction of the parent word splits. The new significance receives a separate being and starts a new semantic construction of its ain. Hence the term decomposition or split of lexical ambiguity. It must be noted, nevertheless, that though the figure of illustrations in which a procedure of this kind could be observed is considerable, it is hard to set up exact standards by which decomposition of lexical ambiguity could be detected. The whole construct is based on saying whether there is any connexion between the significances or non, and is really subjective. Whereas in the illustrations covering with phonic convergence, i.e. when we said that “ case1 ” and “ case2 ” are different words because they differ in beginning, we had definite lingual standards to travel by, in the instance of decomposition of lexical ambiguity there are none to steer us ; we can merely trust on intuition and single lingual experience. For a trained linguist the figure of unrelated homonyms will be much smaller than for an uneducated individual. The cognition of etymology and blood relation linguistic communications will ever assist to provide the losing links. It is easier, for case, to see the connexion between beam ‘a beam of visible radiation ‘ and beam ‘the metallic structural portion of a edifice ‘ if one knows the original significance of the word, i.e. ‘tree ‘ ( OE beam, Germ Baum ) , and is used to detect similar metaphoric transportations in other words. The connexion is besides more obvious if one is able to detect the same component in such compound names of trees as hornbeam, white beam, etc.
The decision, hence, is that in diachronistic intervention the merely strict standard is that of etymology observed in explanatory lexicons of the English linguistic communication where words are separated harmonizing to their beginning,
For illustration, in the words match1 ‘a piece of inflammable stuff you strike fire with ‘ ( from OFr “ mesche ” , Fr “ meche ” ) and match2 ( from OE “ gemcecca ” ‘fellow ‘ ) .
It is interesting to observe that out of 2540 homonyms listed in a dictionary1 )merely 7 % are due to decomposition of lexical ambiguity, all the others are etymologically different. One must, nevertheless, maintain in head that patterned homonymy is here practically disregarded. This underestimate of regular patterned homonymy tends to bring forth a false feeling. Actually the homonymy of nouns and verbs due to the procedures of loss of terminations on the one manus and transition on the other is one of the most outstanding characteristics of contemporary English. . It may be combined with semantic alterations as in the brace “ long ” ( adj. ) – “ long ” ( verb ) . The account is that when it seems long before something comes to you, you long for it ( long ( adj. ) comes from OE “ lang ” , whereas “ long ” ( v. ) comes from OE “ langian ” , so that the look “ Me longs ” means ‘it seems long to me ‘ .
The opposite procedure of morphemic add-on can besides ensue in homonymy. This procedure is chiefly due to independent word-formation with the same affix or to the homonymy of derivational and functional affixes. The postfix -er signifiers several words with the same root: trail — trailer ‘a crawl works ‘ vs. dawdler ‘a train ‘ , i.e. ‘a vehicle drawn along by another vehicle ‘ . The postfix -s added to the homonymic stems -arm- gives “ weaponries ” ( n. ) ‘Weapon ‘ and “ weaponries ” ( v. ) ‘Supplies with arms ‘ . In summing up this dichromatic analysis of homonymy it should be emphasized that there are two ways by which homonyms come into being, viz. convergent development of sound signifier and divergent development of significance ( see table below ) . The first may dwell in
( a ) phonic alteration merely,
( B ) phonic alteration combined with loss of affixes,
( vitamin E ) independent formation
from homonymic bases by agencies of homonymic morphemes. The 2nd, that is divergent development of significance may be
( a ) limited within one lexico-grammatical category of words,
( B ) combined with difference in lexico-grammatical category and hence difference in grammatical maps and distribution,
( degree Celsius ) based on independent formation from the same base by homonymic morphemes.
The procedure can sometimes be more complicated. At present there are at least two homonyms: “ stick ” ( noun1 ) – ‘insert pointed things into ‘ , a extremely polysemous word, and the no less polysemous “ stick ” ( noun ) ‘a rod ‘ .
In the class of clip the figure of homonyms on the whole additions, although on occasion the struggle of homonyms terminals in word loss.
4.2. 2 Practical attack in analyzing homonyms
The synchronous intervention of English homonyms brings to the head a set of jobs of paramount importance for different subdivisions of applied linguistics: lexicography, foreign linguistic communication instruction and machine interlingual rendition. These jobs are: the standards separating homonymy from lexical ambiguity, the preparation of regulations for acknowledging different significances of the same homonym in footings of distribution, and the description of difference between patterned and irregular homonymy. It is necessary to stress that all these jobs are connected with troubles created by homonymy in understanding the message by the reader or hearer, non with explicating one ‘s ideas ; they exist for the talker merely in so far as he must build his address in a manner that would forestall all possible misinterpretation.
All three jobs are so closely interlacing that it is hard to divide them. So we shall discourse them as they appear for assorted practical intents. For a lexicographer it is a job of set uping word boundaries. It is easy plenty to see that lucifer, as in safety lucifers, is a separate word from the verb lucifer ‘to suit ‘ . But he must cognize whether he is justified in taking into one entry lucifer, as in football lucifer, and lucifer in meet one ‘s lucifer ‘one ‘s equal ‘ . Can the English verb bear in bear a load, bear problems, bear fruit, bear offspring be viewed as a individual word or as a set of two or possibly even more homonyms? Similarly, charge, in charge the gun, charge the adult male with larceny, charge person a stiff monetary value can be viewed in several ways.
On the synchronous degree, when the difference in etymology is irrelevant, the job of set uping the standard for the differentiation between different words indistinguishable in sound signifier, and different significances of the same word becomes difficult to work out. The semantic standard which finally is reduced to separating between words that “ have nil in common semantically ” and those that “ have something in common ” and therefore must be taken as one lexical unit, is really obscure and hopelessly subjective. Nevertheless the job can non be dropped wholly as upon an efficient agreement of dictionary entries depends the sum of clip spent by the readers in looking up a word: a lexicologist will either salvage or blow his readers ‘ clip and attempt.
Actual solutions differ. It is a widely dispersed pattern in English lexicography to unite in one entry words of indistinguishable phonic signifier demoing similarity of lexical significance or, in other words, uncovering a lexical invariant, even if they belong to different parts of address. In post-war lexicography in our state a different tendency has settled. The Anglo-Russian lexicon edited by V. D. Arakin makes nine separate entries with the word “ right ” against four points given in the dictionary edited by Hornby.
The truth is that there exists no cosmopolitan standard for the differentiation between lexical ambiguity and homonymy, unless one accepts the solution offered by V. I. Abayev and follows the information of etymology, dividing as homonyms merely those words that have different beginnings and merely by chance coincided phonetically. The necessary limitation is that different beginnings must be traced within the history of the linguistic communication. Wordss that coincided phonetically before they penetrated into the English vocabulary are non taken into history. The etymological standard, nevertheless, may really frequently lead to deformation of the contemporary state of affairs. The English vocabulary of to-day is non a reproduction of the Old English vocabulary with some add-ons from borrowing. It is in many respects a vitamin D
ifferent system, and this system will non be revealed if the lexicologist is guided by etymological standards merely. A more or less simple, if non really strict, process based on strictly synchronous informations may be prompted by transformational analysis. It may be called explanatory transmutation. It is based on the premise that if different senses rendered by the same phonic composite can be defined with the aid of an indistinguishable meat word-group, they may be considered sufficiently near to be regarded as discrepancies of the same word ; if non, they are homonyms.
See the undermentioned set of illustrations:
1. A kid ‘s voice is heard. 2. His voice… was… annoyingly well-mannered.
3. The voice-voicelessness differentiation… sets up some English consonants in opposed braces…
4. In the voice contrast of active and inactive… the active is the unmarked signifier.
The first discrepancy ( voice1 may be defined as ‘sounds expressed in speech production or vocalizing as feature of a peculiar individual ‘ , voice2 as ‘mode of expressing sounds in speech production or singing ‘ , voice3 as ‘the quiver of the vocal chords in sounds expressed ‘ . So far all the definitions contain one and the same kernel component rendering the invariant common footing of their significance. It is, nevertheless, impossible to utilize the same kernel component for the significance nowadays in the 4th illustration. The corresponding definition is: “ Voice — that signifiers of the verb that expresses the relation of the topic to the action ” . This failure to fulfill the same account expression sets the 4th significance apart. It may so be considered a homonym to the polysemous word encompassing the first three discrepancies.
The process described may stay helpful when the points considered belong to different parts of address ; the verb voice may intend, for illustration, ‘to utter a sound by the assistance of the vocal chords ‘ .
This brings us to the job of patterned homonymy, i. e. of the invariant lexical significance nowadays in homonyms that have developed from one common beginning and belong to assorted parts of address.
Is a lexicologist justified in puting the verb to voice with the above significance into the same entry with the first three discrepancies of the noun? The same inquiry arises with regard to after or before — preposition, concurrence and adverb.
The elder coevals of English linguists thought it quite possible for one and the same word to map as different parts of speech.1 Such braces as act n — act V, back n — back V, thrust N — drive V, the above mentioned after and before and the similar, were wholly treated as one word operation as different parts of address. Subsequently on this point of position was badly criticized. It was argued that one and the same word could non belong to different parts of address at the same time because this would belie the definition of the word as a system of signifiers. This point of view is non immaculate either: if one follows it systematically one should see as separate words all instances when words are denumerable nouns in one significance and uncountable in another, when verbs can be used transitively and intransitively, etc.
In this instance hair ‘all the hair that grows on a individual ‘s head7 will be one word, an uncountable noun ; whereas a individual yarn of hair will be denoted by another word ( hair2 ) which, being denumerable, and therefore different in paradigm, can non be considered the same word. It would be boring to recite all the absurdnesss that will ensue from taking this way. A dictionary arranged on these lines would necessitate really much infinite in printing and could occasion much otiose clip in usage. The decision therefore is that efficiency in lexicographic work is secured by a strict application of etymological standards combined with formalistic processs of set uping a lexical invariant suggested by synchronous lingual methods.
As to those concerned with instruction of English as a foreign linguistic communication, they are besides keenly interested in patterned homonymy. The most often used words constitute the greatest sum of trouble, as may be summed up by the undermentioned illustration: I think that this “ that ” is a concurrence but that « that ” adult male that used was a pronoun.
A right apprehension of this distinctive feature of modern-day English should be instilled in the students from the really beginning, and they should be taught to happen their manner in sentences where several words have their homonyms in other parts of address, as in Jespersen’s1 )illustration: Will alteration of air cure-love? cubic decimeter To demo the range of the job for the simple phase a list of homonyms that should be classified as patterned is given below:
“ Above ” – prep. , adv. , adj. ; “ act ” – n. , v. ; “ after ” – prep. , adv. , conj. ; “ age ” – n. , v. ; “ back ” – n. , adv. , v. ; “ ball ” – n. , v. ; “ bank ”
We may give the other illustrations: by, can, instance, near, state, class, cross, direct, draw, thrust, even, swoon, level, fly, for, game, general, difficult, conceal, keep, place, merely, sort, last, go forth, left, lie, light, like, small, batch, major, March, lucifer, may, intend, might, mind, miss, portion, field, plane, home base, right, unit of ammunition, crisp, sound, spare, enchantment, spring, square, phase, cast, seek, type, volume, ticker, well, will, etc.
For the most portion all these words are instances of patterned lexico-grammatical homonymy taken from the minimal vocabulary of the simple phase: the above homonyms largely differ within each group grammatically but possess some lexical invariant. That is to state, move V follows the standard four-part system of signifiers with a basal signifier act, an s-form ( act-s ) , a Past Tense signifier ( acted ) and an -ing- signifier ( moving ) and takes up all syntactic maps of verbs, whereas act N can hold two signifiers, act ( remarkable. ) and Acts of the Apostless ( plural ) . Semantically both contain the most generalised constituent rendering the impression of making something.
Recent probes have shown that it is rather possible to set up and to formalise the differences in environment, syntactical or lexical, functioning to signal which of the several built-in values is to be ascribed to the variable in a given context.
An illustration of distributional analysis will assist to do this point clear. The distribution of a lexico-semantic discrepancy of a word may be represented as a list of structural forms in which it occurs and the informations on its uniting power. Some of the most typical structural forms 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. Forms for nouns are far less studied, but for the present instance one really typical illustration will do. This is the construction article for A + N. In the undermentioned infusion from “ A Taste of Honey ” by Sheath
Delaney the morpheme “ laugh ” occurs three times:
1.I ca n’t stand people who laugh at other people.
2. They ‘d acquire a bigger laugh, if they laughed at themselves.
We recognize laugh used foremost and last here as a verb because the expression is N + laugh + homework + N and so the form is in both instances – [ -V H-prep — N. In the beginning of the 2nd sentence laugh
Cite this Homonyms in English and their specific features
Homonyms in English and their specific features. (2017, Jul 13). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/homonyms-in-english-and-their-specific-features/