A course In Modern English Lexicology

§ 39. Summary
and Conclusions have different semantic structure. The problem of homonymy is mainly the problem of
differentiation between two different semantic structures of identically sounding words.
2. Homonymy of words and homonymy of individual word-forms may be regarded as full and p a r t i a l homonymy. Cases of f u l l hom o n y m y are generally observed in words belonging to the same part of speech. P a r t i a l h o m o n y m y is usually to be found in word-forms of different parts of speech.
3. Homonymous words and word-forms may be classified by the type of meaning that serves to differentiate between identical sound-forms.
L e x i c a l h o m o n y m s differ in lexical meaning, l e x i c o -
g r a m m a t i c a l in both lexical and grammatical meanings, whereas g r a m m a t i c a l h o m o n y m s are those that differ in grammatical meaning only.
L e x i c o - g r a m m a t i c a l h o m o n y m s are not homogeneous. Homonyms arising from conversion have some related lexical meanings in their semantic structure. Though some individual meanings may be related the whole of the semantic structure of homonyms is essentially different.
5. If the graphic form of homonyms is taken into account, they are classified on the basis of the three aspects — sound-form, graphic form and meaning — into three big groups: h o m o g r a p h s (identical graphic form), h o m o p h o n e s ‘ (identical sound-form) and p e r -
f e c t h o m o n y m s (identical sound-form and graphic form).
6. The two main sources of homonymy are: 1) diverging meaning development of a polysemantic word, and 2) convergent sound development of two or more different words. The latter is the most potent factor in the creation of homonyms.
7. The most debatable problem of homonymy is the demarcation line
“between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between different meanings of one word and the meanings of two or more phonemically different words.
1 See ‘Introduction’, § 2.
45
8. The criteria used in the synchronic analysis of homonymy are: 1) the semantic criterion of related or unrelated meanings; 2) the criterion of spelling; 3) the criterion of distribution.
There are cases of lexical homonymy when none of the criteria enumerated above is of any avail. In such cases the demarcation line between polysemy and homonymy is rather fluid.
9. The problem of discriminating between polysemy and homonymy in theoretical linguistics is closely connected with the problem of the basic unit at the semantic level of analysis.
WORD-MEANING IN SYNTAGMATICS
AND PARADIGMATICS
It is more or less universally recognised 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.1
Intralinguistic relations of words are basically of two main types: s y n t a g m a t i c and p a r a d i g m a t i c .
S y n t a g m a t i c 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 the 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.
P a r a d i g m a t i c 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 se,ts 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., e.g., the English I, you, etc., and the Russian я, ты, вы, etc.).Thesets of items in which the choice 1 See ‘Semasiology’, § 4, p. 18. 46

is limited to a finite number of alternatives as here are described as closed 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 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.1 are studied by lexicology.
The distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations is conventionally indicated by horizontal and vertical presentation as is shown below.
From the discussion of the paradigmatic and
§ 40. Polysemy and Context syntagmatic relations it follows that a full understanding of the semantic structure of any lexical item can be gained only from the study of a variety of contexts in which the word is used, i.e.
from the study of the intralinguistic relations of words in the flow of speech. This is of greatest importance in connection with the problem of the synchronic approach to polysemy.
It will be recalled that in analysing the semantic structure of the polysemantic word table we observed that some meanings are representative of the word in isolation, i.e. they invariably occur to us when we hear the word or see it written on paper. Other meanings come to the fore only when the word is used in certain contexts. This is true of all polysemantic words. The adjective yellow, e.g., when used in isolation is understood to denote a certain colour, whereas other meanings of this word, e.g. ‘envi-ous’, ‘suspicious’ or ‘sensational’, ‘corrupt’, are perceived only in certain contexts, e.g. ‘a yellow look’, ‘the yellow press’, etc.
As can be seen from the examples discussed above we understand by the term c o n t e x t the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word. This is not to imply that polysemantic words have meanings only in the context. The semantic structure of the word has an objective existence as a dialectical entity which embodies 1 See ‘Semasiology’, §§ 45-50, pp. 51-61.
47
dialectical permanency and variability. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense that we say that meaning is determined by context.
The meaning or meanings representative of the semantic structure of the word and least dependent on context are usually described as free or denominative meanings. Thus we assume that the meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ is the denominative meaning of the word table, the meaning ‘construct, produce’ is the free or denominative meaning of the verb make.
The meaning or meanings of polysemantic words observed only in certain contexts may be viewed as determined either by linguistic (or verbal) contexts or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.
The two more or less universally recognised main types of linguistic contexts which serve to determine individual meanings of words are the lexical context and the grammatical context. These types are differentiated depending on whether the lexical or the grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.
In lexical contexts of primary importance are