2. Sources of homonymy. Homonymy and polysemy

The intense development of homonymy in English is explained by several interrelated causes, such as the monosyllabic character of English and its analytic structure. Inflections have disappeared in present-day English and have been replaced by prepositions, auxiliaries, etc.

According to I.V. Arnold different causes by which homonymy may be brought about are subdivided into 3 main groups:

l) homonymy through convergent phonetic changes, when two or three words of different origin accidentally coincide in sound; e.g: night – knight were not homonyms and were pronounced differently. Here we also speak about borrowing e.g. rite- a ceremonial act (latin ritus)- write-to make letters – right-correct (native); bank –shore (native); bank – a financial institution ( Italian) and shortening, e.g. fan –fanatic – fan- implement for waving; cab-cabbage-cab-cabriolet

2)conversion; e.g.comb-an object used for arranging hair -to comb - to arrange hair; ape – a monkey –to ape- to copy smb`s behaviour. As a result, lexico-grammatical homonyms are formed. Morphemic addition can also result in homo­nymy. This process is connected with word-formation with the same affix or to the homonymy of derivational and functional affixes. The suffix –er: trail-to drag — trailer- a creeping plant - trailer - a caravan. The suffix-s added to the homonymous stems: arm –an upper limb of a person— arms - weapon.

3) homonymy developed from polysemy through divergent sense development. It is called split or in N. Gvishiani`s terms - limit polysemy. The most frequent words are also highly polysemantic, and it is natural that they develop mean­ings which may deviate very far from the central one after some time. When the intermediate links fall out, some of these new meanings lose all connections with the rest of the structure and start a separate existence. Both may be combined with loss of endings and other morphological processes.

It is diffic­ult to establish exact criteria by which disintegration of polysemy could be detected. In general it is based on stating whether there is any connection between the meanings or not, and is very subjective.

N. Gvishiani speaks about 3 factors: 1) the semantic proximity of LSVs 2) their derivation capacity 3) the range of collocability.

1) to find semantic proximity means to see the connection of different LSVs with the central(core) meaning of the word and between one another She gives an example: 1) He propped his elbows upon a greasy counter; The roads are greasy with rain; I don`t like because he is greasy(too polite, that is unpleasant.). Here the connection can be followed. But there are cases when it is really difficult or impossible to follow the link with the core meaning. The classical example of split polysemy is the set of words 1)board – apiece of wood; 2) an official group of people performing some task 3) meals. At first sight these words have no close associations, in dictionaries they are given as homonyms or in V.K.Myuller`s dictionary- 1,3-one word; 2-a separate meaning). But etimologically, they had one close concept- table or a flat piece of wood used for various purposes, the development of meaning went metonymically; e.g spring-a leap; a stream of water; a season. The change is metaphorcal: water leaps, nature leaps from sleeping etc.

2) potential homonyms develop their own sets of related word: e.g. custom-tradition- customary; custom- a purchase- a customer; customs- control of luggage- customs officer.

3) homonyms or potential homonys are collocated differently, e.g. The board made up their mind; He paid for the board and tuition; He took a board and a nail; a blackboard

In this connection the phenomenon of enantiosemy should be mentioned. It is a specific use of the word that is the result of incompatibility of meaning and function(prosody). It is close to what is called irony. E.g. A fine specimen! – Вот так тип!

In general only 7% of homonyms are due to split polysemy

I.V.Arnold and V. I. Abayev think that in diachronic treatment the only criterion is etymology observed in explanatory dictiona­ries. In their opinion only those words that have different sources and only accidentally coincided phonetically should be treated as homonyms.

LECTURE IV

Synonymic and Antonymic Relations in the Language

1. Synonymy as a phenomenon. Criteria of synonymy. Classification of synonyms.

2. Sources of synonymy.

3. Euphemisms.

4. Other types of paradigmatic relations.

5. Antonyms.

1. Synonymy as a phenomenon. Criteria of synonymy. Classification of synonyms.

Synonymy is a type of paradigmatic relations in the language where several expressions or sym­bols correspond to one content. The phenomen itself is ambiguous and the simplest definition of synonyms is that they are words of the same meaning. In reality it is rather a dubious point of view because if two words have the same meaning they are not necessary in the language. Consequently one of the words exactly coinciding in meaning and use, should either change its meaning or drop out of the lan­guage. Trying to define synonyms scholars have spoken about 3 main criteria: the conceptual criterion, the semantic criterion and the criterion of interchangeability.

1)The conceptual criterion was suggested by V.V.Vinogradov and treated synonyms as words of the same part of speech, conveying the same concept but different in shades of meaning. The approach was criticized because the term “shades of meaning” is not a linguistic one.

2)The semantic approach used componetal analysis and defined synonyms as words with the same denotation, but different in connotations. A common denotational component of the meanng brings the words together into a synonymic group. All the other compo­nents can vary and thus form the distinctive features of the synonymic oppositions.

3)Interchangeability is not a simple notion either. Synonyms are interchangeable under certain conditions specif­ic to each group. Here the question of collocability is also raised. Interchangeability is tested by means of substitution. The values of words can best be defined by substituting them for one another and observing the resulting changes. E.g. expectation, hope, anticipation – synonyms, but they can hardly substitute fot one another.

Synonyms have certain common ground within which they are interchangeable without alteration of meaning or with a very slight loss in effectiveness.

Substituting synonyms, e.g. question or inquire, will involve a change in the structure of the sentence (the preposition of ), which shows the distributional opposition between these words. It shows that interchangeability is limited. Words similar in meaning may prove interchangeable in some contexts and not interchangeable in others.

So traditionally synonyms are defined as words of the same part of speech, different in their sound form and spelling but similar in their denotative meaning and interchangeable at least in some contexts. Some scholars add that synonyms stand for the same notion. I.V. Arnold gives a more developed definition and adds that synonyms also differ in mor­phemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, connotations, affective value, style, valency and idiomatic use.

Two other important terms are 1) synonymic attraction (condensation) and 2)syno­nymic dominant.

1) synonymic attraction (condensation) consists in the fact that subjects important or interesting for the the author of the book or the speaker tend to attract a large number of synonyms, e.g. He saw the popular, easy, funny Martin; in the poem “Beowulf”, there are 37 synonyms for the word hero. This phenomenon is used as stylistic device to make the text more expressive. In addition to synonymic attraction there is another phenomenon, called radiation of synomyms. When a word changes its meaning there is a tendency for its synonyms to develop their meanings in the same way, e.g. to overlook – to deceive; later, to oversee- to deceive.

2) syno­nymic dominant is the most general term potentially containing the specific features by all the other members of the synonymic group. Stylistically it is the most neutral word: to glance – to peer – to stare – to look.

The notion of synonymy is closely connected with those of hyponymy and hyperonymy. Synomyms should not be confused with hyponyms and hyperonyms. A hyperonym is a generic term. It serves to name the notion of the genus as distinguished from the names of the species. E.g. animal - a generic term to the specific names wolf, dog or mouse (which are not synonymous). Dog is a ge­neric term for different breeds such as bull-dog, collie, poodle. Hyponymy is a relation of inclusion, e.g. the meaning of puppy is included in the meaning of dog, i.e. a more specific term is included in a more generic one. The class of animals referred to by the word dog is wider and includes the class referred to by the word puppy.

Synonyms are classified into ideographic, stylistic and absolute(total). The classification was introduced by V. V. Vinogradov.

Ideographic synonyms are words different in shades of meaning, that means in notion or emotion, e.g. to ascend-to climb; looks-appearance-countenance; associate-companion; to happen-to occur-to befall.

Stylistic synonyms are different in stylistic connotations (colloquial, dialectal etc), e.g. child-kid; money-dough, to die – to pass away- to join the silent majority – to kick the bucket.

Absolute (total) synonymy is a rare occurrence. Such examples can be found in spe­cial literature among terms peculiar to this or that branch of knowledge. In linguistics the terms noun and substantive, functional affix, flection and inflection; total – absolute synonyms; attraction-condemsation. are used. Terminological synonyms are often connected with diffent treds and schools and are used by particular authors. Terms are a peculiar type of words, totally devoid of connotations of any kind. That is why this is a very special kind of synonymy: neither ideographic nor stylistic oppositions are possible here.

Scholars also speak about dialectal synonyms, which are synonyms used in different variants or dialects of the language, e.g. autumn –fall; lift-elevator; flat-apartment

There is also a phenomenon of contextual synonyms, which can be interchanged only in some contexts, but the question of interchangeability is dubiuos in itself. Synonyms can differ in distribution and valency(collocability).

The difference in distribution may be syntactical or lexical, e.g bare in reference to persons is used only predicatively, while naked occurs both predicatively and attributively. It is a case of syntactical difference.

Lexical difference in distribution is based on the difference in valency, to win - to gain. Both may be used in combination with the noun victory: to win a victory, to gain a victory. But with the word war only win is possible: to win a war. Here we come across the sphere of phraseology.

Synonyms are often used in phraseological units. They often have typical features of idiomatic phrases such as rhythm, alliteration, rhyme and the use of archaic words.It makes them easy to remember, e.g. wear and tear,hale and hearty, with might and main, stress and strain, rack and ruin, really and truly.