Graphic and Sound-Form of Homonyms

Discussing homonymy we have taken into account their sound form and meaning but not their graphic form. This form is, according to some linguists, just as important as their sound-form and should be taken into consideration in the analysis and classification of homonyms. Consequently, they proceed from definition of homonyms as words identical in sound-form or spelling but different in meaning. It follows that in their classification of homonyms all the three aspects: sound-form, graphic form and meaning are taken into account. Accordingly they classify homonyms into homographs, homophones and perfect homonyms.

Homographs are words identical in spelling, but different both in their sound-form and meaning, e.g. bow n [bou]—'a piece of wood curved by a string and used for shooting arrows' and bow n [bau] — 'the bending of the head or body'; tear [ti@] —'a drop of water that comes from the eye' and tear v [tE@] — 'to pull apart by force'.

Homophones are words identical in sound-form but different both in spelling and in meaning, e.g. sea n and see v; son n and sun n.

Perfect homonyms are words identical both in spelling and in sound-form but different in meaning, e.g. case₁ n—'something that has happened' and case₂ n — 'a box, a container'.

Sources of Homonymy

Diachronically, it would be essential to discuss the historical processes that give rise to homonyms.

The two main sources of homonymy are:

1) diverging meaning development of a polysemantic word, and

2) converging sound development of two or more different words.

The process of diverging meaning development can be observed when different meanings of the same word move so far away from each other that they come to be regarded as two separate units. This happened, for example, in the case of Modern English flower and flour which originally were one word (ME. flour, cf. OFr. flour, flor, L. flos —florem) meaning 'the flower' and 'the finest part of wheat'. The difference in spelling underlines the fact that from the synchronic point of view they are two distinct words even though historically they have a common origin.

Convergent sound development is the most potent factor in the creation of homonyms. The great majority of homonyms arise as a result of converging sound development which leads to the coincidence of two or more words which were phonetically distinct at an earlier date. For example, OE. ic and OE. eaže have become identical in pronunciation (MnE. I [ai] and eye [ai]). A number of lexicogrammatical homonyms appeared as a result of convergent sound development of the verb and the noun (cf. MnE. love — (to) love and OE. lufu — lufian).

Words borrowed from other languages may through phonetic convergence become homonymous. ON. ras and Fr. race are homonymous in Modern English (cf. race₁ [reis] — 'running' and race₂ [reis] — 'a distinct ethnical stock').

Word-meaning in syntagmaTlCs and paradigmatics

It is more or less universally recognized that word-meaning can be perceived through intralinguistic relations that exist between words. This approach does not in any way deny that lexical items relate to concrete features of the real world but it is suggested that word-meaning is not comprehensible solely in terms of the referential approach.

Intralinguistic relations of words are basically of two main types, syntagmatic and paradigmatic.

Syntagmatic relations define the meaning the word possesses when it is used in combination with other words in the flow of speech. For example, compare the meaning of the verb to get in

He got a letter,

He got tired,

He got to London and

He could not get the piano through door.

Paradigmatic relations are those that exist between individual lexical items which make up one of the subgroups of vocabulary items, e.g. sets of synonyms, lexico-semantic groups, etc.

Paradigmatic relations define the word-meaning through its interrelation with other members of the subgroup in question. For example, the meaning of the verb to get can be fully understood only in comparison with other items of the synonymic set: get, obtain, receive, etc. Cf. He got a letter, he received a letter, he obtained a letter, etc. Comparing the sentences discussed above we may conclude that an item in a sentence can be usually substituted by one or more than one other items that have identical part-of-speech meaning and similar though not identical lexical meaning.

The difference in the type of subgroups the members of which are substitutable in the flow of speech is usually described as the difference between closed and open sets of lexical items. For example, any one of a number of personal pronouns may occur as the subject of a sentence and the overall sentence structure remains the same. These pronouns are strictly limited in number and therefore form a closed system in which to say he is to say not I, not you, etc. To some extent the meaning of he is defined by the other items in the system (cf., the English I, you, and the Bulgarian аз, ти, вие). The sets of items in which the choice is limited to a finite number of alternatives as here are described as close systems.

The members of closed systems are strictly limited in number and no addition of new items is possible.

The sets in which the number of alternatives is practically infinite as they are continually being adapted to the new requirements by the addition of new lexical items are described as open systems. Closed systems are traditionally considered to be the subject matter of grammar, open systems such as lexico-semantic fields, hyponymic, synonymic sets, etc. are studied by lexicology.

The distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations is conventionally indicated by horizontal and vertical presentation as is shown below.

Syntagmatic relations

He got a letter I received a note She obtained an epistle etc.