A course In Modern English Lexicology

§ 35. Graphic and Sound-Form
of Homonyms we
proceeded from the assumption that words
are two-facet units possessing both sound-
form and meaning, and we deliberately disregarded their graphic form.
Some linguists, however, argue that the graphic form of words in Modern English is 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 h o m o g r a p h s , h o m o p h o n e s and p e r f e c t h o m o -
n y m s .
H o m o g r a p h s 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 n [tia] — ‘a drop of water that comes from the eye’ and tear v [tea] — ‘to pull apart by force’.
H o m o p h o n e s 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.
P e r f e c t h o m o n y m s 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’.
The description of various types of homonyms
§ 36. Sources of Homonymy in Modern English would be incomplete if we did not give a brief outline of the diachronic processes that account for their appearance.
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 d i v e r g i n g m e a n -
i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 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.
C o n v e r g e n t s o u n d d e v e l o p m e n t 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. еаzе have become identical in pronunciation (MnE. I [ai] and eye [ai]). A number of lexico-grammatical homonyms appeared as a result of convergent sound development of the verb and the noun (cf. MnE. love — (to) love and OE. lufu — lufian).
42
Words borrowed from other languages may through phonetic conver-gence become homonymous. ON. ras and Fr. race are homonymous in Modern English (cf. race1 [reis] — ‘running’ and race2 [reis] — ‘a distinct ethnical stock’).
One of the most debatable problems in sema-
§ 37. Polysemy and Homonymy: siology is the demarcation line between ho-Etymological and Semantic
Criteria m
onymy and polysemy, i.e. between differ-
ent meanings of one word and the meanings of two homonymous words.
If homonymy is viewed diachronically then all cases of sound conver-gence of two or more words may be safely regarded as cases of homonymy, as, e.g., race1 and race2 can be traced back to two etymologically different words. The cases of semantic divergence, however, are more doubtful. The transition from polysemy to homonymy is a gradual process, so it is hardly possible to point out the precise stage at which divergent semantic development tears asunder all ties between the meanings and results in the appearance of two separate words. In the case of flower, flour, e.g., it is mainly the resultant divergence of graphic forms that gives us grounds to assert that the two meanings which originally made up the semantic structure of о n e word are now apprehended as belonging to t w o different words.
S y n c h r o n i c a l l y the differentiation between homonymy and polysemy is as a rule wholly based on the semantic criterion. It is usually held that if a connection between the various meanings is apprehended by the speaker, these are to be considered as making up the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it is a case of homonymy, not polysemy.
Thus the semantic criterion implies that the difference between polysemy and homonymy is actually reduced to the differentiation between related and unrelated meanings. This traditional semantic criterion does not seem to be reliable, firstly, because various meanings of the same word and the meanings of two or more different words may be equally apprehended by the speaker as synchronically unrelated. For instance, the meaning ‘a change in the form of a noun or pronoun’ which is usually listed in dictionaries as one of the meanings of case1 seems to be synchronically just as unrelated to the meanings of this word as ’something that has happened’, or ‘a question decided in the court of law’ to the meaning of case2 — ‘a box, a container’, etc.
Secondly, in the discussion of lexico-grammatical homonymy it was pointed out that some of the meanings of homonyms arising from conversion (e.g. seal2 n — seal3 v; paper n — paper v) are related, so this criterion cannot be applied to a large group of homonymous word-forms in Modern English. This criterion proves insufficient in the synchronic analysis of a number of other borderline cases, e.g. brother — brothers
— ’sons of the same parent’ and brethren — ‘fellow members of a religious society’. The meanings may be apprehended as related and then we can speak of polysemy pointing out that the difference in the morphological structure of the plural form reflects the difference of meaning. Otherwise we may regard this as a case of partial lexical homonymy.
43
It is sometimes argued that the difference between related and unrelated meanings may be observed in the manner in which the meanings of polysemantic words are as a rule relatable. It is observed that different meanings of one word have certain stable relationship which are not to be found ‘between the meanings of two homonymous words. A clearly perceptible connection, e.g., can be seen in all metaphoric or metonymic meanings of one word (cf., e.g., foot of the man — foot of the mountain, loud voice — loud colours, etc.,1 cf. also deep well and deep knowledge, etc.).
Such semantic relationships are commonly found in the meanings of one word and are considered to be indicative of polysemy. It is also suggested that the semantic connection may be described in terms of such features as, e.g., form and function (cf. horn of an animal and horn as an instrument), or process and result (to run — ‘move with quick steps’ and a run — act of running).
Similar relationships, however, are observed between the meanings of two partially homonymic words, e.g. to run and a run in the stocking.
Moreover in the synchronic analysis of polysemantic words we often find meanings that cannot be related in any way, as, e.g. the meanings of the word case discussed above. Thus the semantic criterion proves not only untenable in theory but also rather vague and because of this impossible in practice as in many cases it cannot be used to discriminate between several meanings of one word and the meanings of two different words.
The criterion of distribution suggested by