HOMONYMY

WHAT ARE HOMONYMS?

Homonyms are words which are the same in sound and spelling, or, at least, in
one of these aspects, but different in their meanings.
Let us examine a few examples in the following sentences:
- The dog began to bark when we were carving our initials in the bark of the tree.
- “We eat what we can, and what we can't eat we can”
- The wind blew my blue shirt into the pool.
- Cheryl rode along as we rowed the boat from the island to the lakeside road.
- I’ve never seen such a beautiful scene.
- We want a site for our home that will be out of sight.
- The seam in the tent doesn’t seem to hold back the rain.
- Due to the dry weather, we do not see any dew on the grass.
The state or quality of a given word’s having the same spelling and the same
sound or pronunciation as another word, but with a different meaning is called
homonymy.
Homonymy exists in many languages, but in English it is particularly frequent,
especially among monosyllabic words. In the list of 2540 homonyms given in The
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2004), 89% are monosyllabic words and only 9.1%
are words of two syllables.

CLASSIFICATION OF HOMONYMS
Traditionally, homonyms are classified into three types namely, homonyms
proper, homophones and homographs. This is the most widely accepted classification of
homonyms.

1. Homonyms proper
Homonyms proper are words that are identical in both pronunciation and spelling.
Study these puns:
a. “Is life worth living?” ”It depends upon the liver.”
b. “What do you do with the fruit?” “We eat what we can, and what we can't eat
we can”
 The words “liver” meaning “a living person” and “liver” meaning “the organ that
secretes bile” (a) and words “can”, an auxiliary verb and “can”, a notional verb (b) are,
for instance, intentionally present in the above play upon words:
Other examples are:
back n “part of the body” - back adv “away from the front” - back v “go back”;
ball n “a gathering of people for dancing” - ball n “round object used in games”;
bark n “the noise made by dog” - bark v “to utter sharp explosive cries”;
bark n “the skin of a tree”;

2. Homophones
Homophones are words that are the same sound but of different spelling.
For example,
air - heir; arms - alms;
buy - by; him - hymn;
knight - night; not - knot; or - oar and many others.
In the following sentence the sound complex [rait] stands for 4 different nouns,
one adjective and one verb, having four different spellings:
“The play-wright on my right thinks it right that some conventional rite should
symbolize the right of every man to write as he pleases”.
Homophones are often used to create puns and to deceive the reader or to suggest
multiple meanings.
e.g. “My daughter has arranged a little piece for the piano.”
“Good! It’s about time we had a little peace!”
3. Homographs
Homographs are words that are the same in spelling but different in sound. For
example,
implement [„impliment] (v): to carry out, to put into effect
implement [„implimənt](n) : a tool, a piece of equipment
content [kən‟tent] (a): feeling satisfaction of what one has
content [„kɒntent] (n): things contained in something
sewer [`souə] (n): person sewing something
sewer [su:ə] (n): underground pipe or passage that carries sewage away.
wind [wind] (n): air in motion
 wind [waind](v)]: bend, turn round
Some linguists hold that the subdivision of homonyms into homonyms proper,
homophones and homographs is not precise enough and does not reflect certain important
features of these words, and, most important of all, their status as parts of speech.
According to them, the classification of homonyms should reflect this distinctive feature.
Also, the paradigm of each word should be considered, because it has been observed that
the paradigms of some homonyms coincide completely, and of others only partially.
From this perspective, A.I. Smirnitsky suggested a different way of classifying
homonyms. According to him, homonyms can be classified into two main types: full
homonyms and partial homonyms.

1. Full homonyms
Full lexical homonyms are words, which represent the same category of parts of
speech and have the same paradigm.
ball n. “a gathering of people for dancing”
ball n. “a round object used in games”
row [rou] (n): a line of people or things
row [rau] (n): a noisy or violent argument or quarrel
2. Partial homonyms
Partial homonyms are subdivided into three subgroups:
a. Simple lexico-grammatical partial homonyms are words which belong to the same
category of parts of speech and they have one identical form in their paradigms. For
example,
(to) fell v
fell v (past indef. of to fall)
(to) wound v
wound v (past indef., past part of wind)
(to) saw v
saw v ( past part. of to see)
b. Complex lexico-grammatical partial homonyms are words of different categories of
parts of speech, which have one identical form in their paradigms.
way n. - weigh v.
right a. - right n.
due a. - dew n.
founder n. - founder v
 ate (v) - eight (num).
c. Partial lexical homonyms are words of the same category of parts of speech which are
identical only in their original forms.
to lie (lay, lain) v
to lie (lied, lied) v
to hang (hung, hung) v
to hang (hanged, hanged) v
to can (canned, canned)
(I) can (could)

SOURCES OF HOMONYMS
Why do we have homonyms? Why does the English language in particular have
homonyms? The answer is homonyms can come into existence in languages in several
ways.

1. Phonetic changes
Homonyms come in a language because of the convergent phonetic development
of two or more different lexical units. Most of the homonyms in a language have their
origin in this way. Phonetic changes pertaining to the loss of affixes, simplification of
conjunct consonants, loss of syllables etc. affecting either one of the words or both of
them lead to creation of homonymy, e.g.
Sound n. “strait, a fish’s swimming bladder” OE. sund. “swimming”
Sound a. “healthy” OE. gesund “healthy”.
to knead (O. E. cnedan) and to need (O. E. neodian)
sea (O.E sae, and to see (O. E. seon)
Homonyms appearing by this process are etymologically unrelated. But in these
cases also, even after the phonetic convergence, the two words may be taken as
polysemantic. For instance, English ear “organ of hearing” and ear “spike of corn” are
etymologically unconnected, but the two words are treated as related by some persons
because the spike of the corn is considered as the ear of the corn in the same way as eye
of needle, mouth or river, foot of hill etc.
Concerning phonetic changes, we cannot but mention the assimilation of sounds
causing homonymy, for example,
They‟re hanging their coats over there.
 You‟re crazy if you pierce your ankle!

2. Borrowing
Words borrowed from different languages also contribute to homonymy. These
borrowings may also undergo phonetic changes. The homonyms of this type may be of
different types:
(a) One word is borrowed from another language: e.g.
mean “average” Latin medianus and mean “think” OE. marnan
bank (mound) and bank (financial institution -Italian banca)
(b) Sometimes both the words of the pair of homonyms are borrowed:
piece, n (OFr piece, from Lat. Pecia – fragment) and peace, n, (O. Fr. Pais (Fr.
Paix) from Lat. Păx – peace).

3. Word-building
Conversion is, for sure, the type of word formation that results in the greatest
number of homonyms.
bottle, n.- to bottle, v., ink ,n. – to ink
green, a., - to green, v., yellow, a. to yellow
to win, v.- win, n. , to lose – lose –n.
Other types of word formation such as shortening, affixation, sound-imitation also
contributes quite a few homonyms.
Shortening: Veterinarian = Vet = veteran
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome = AIDS = aids/aides
Flu (influenza) = flu = flew
Affixation: washer (automatic washing machine)
= washer (small flat ring placed between two surfaces)
founder (person who founds or establish something)
= to founder (fail, break down)
Sound imitation: quack (the sound made by a duck)
= quack (Brit sl) a doctor
low (the sound made by cattle)
= low (a) not high or tall
4. Split polysemy/ disintegration
 As said in Unit 4 - Meaning, the semantic structure of a polysemantic word
presents a system within which all its constituent meanings are held together by logical
associations. In most cases, the semantic unity is determined by the central meaning.
If this meaning, for some reason, disappears from the word's semantic structure,
the associations between the meanings may be severed, the semantic structure loses its
unity and fails into two or more parts which then become accepted as independent lexical
units.
Let us consider the three words “board”
board, n - a long and thin piece of timber
board, n - daily meals, esp. as provided for pay, e.g. room and board
board, n - an official group of persons who direct or supervise some activity, e.g. a
board of directors.
It is not easy now for us to find semantic and logical associations among them.
Yet, most larger dictionaries still enter a meaning of board that once held together all
these other meanings “a table” which developed from the meaning “a piece of timber” by
transference based on contiguity (association of an object and the material from which it
is made). The meanings “meals” and “an official group of persons” developed from the
meaning “table”, also by transference based on contiguity: meals are easily associated
with a table on which they are served; an official group of people in authority are also
likely to discuss their business round a table.
Nowadays, however, the item of the furniture, on which meals are served and
round which boards of directors meet, is no longer denoted by the word board but by the
French Norman borrowing table, and board in this meaning, though still registered by
some dictionaries, can very well be marked as archaic as it is no longer used in common
speech. That is why, with the intrusion of the borrowed table, the word board actually
lost its corresponding meaning. But it was just that meaning which served as a link to
hold together the rest of the constituent parts of the word's semantic structure. With its
diminished role as an element of communication, its role in the semantic structure was
also weakened. The speakers almost forgot that board had ever been associated with any
item of furniture, nor could they associate the notions of meals or of a responsible
committee with a long thin piece of timber (which is the oldest meaning of board).
Consequently, the semantic structure of board was split into three units.
Also, in course of time the different related meanings of a word become so very
different that the relatedness of meanings is no longer perceived and the words are treated
as homonyms. But this is very fluid and uncertain field. Much depends on the speaker's
judgement which is not infrequently subjective.
For example, chest 'large box' (OE. cyst, from Lat. cista)
chest 'part of human body'
Bank-mound, bank-financial institution and river bank actually have a common
origin, the Gothic word benc, which originally referred to a small mound. Then it was
also used metaphorically for river bank, and also as a metaphor for a low table, especially
those where bankers used to exchange money, which gave Italian banca, French banque,
and English bank. Bankruptcy originates in banqueroute, i.e. "bank on the road".

HOMONYMY VERSUS POLYSEMY

One of the most controversial points in semantics has been the differentiation
between polysemy and homonymy. The general principle of differentiation has been the
relatedness of the meanings. If the meanings are related it is a case of polysemy, if not, it
is a case of homonymy. The question of relatedness of meanings can be viewed form two
points of view: historical and synchronic. Historically related meanings are those which
can be traced back to the same source that is the meanings are etymologically connected
or one meaning can be derived form the other. If they are not etymologically connected
they are not related and are homonyms.
Synchronic consideration has the intuition of the speakers of the language as its
basis. If the speakers perceive relationship between the meanings of a word it can be said
that the meanings are related and form the semantic structure of one and the same word.
If the speaker feels the meanings are not related it is a case of homonymy. But the
intuition is not always a reliable guide. It can be quite subjective. The speakers may
establish relatedness of meaning where there is none etymologically. We have noted the
example of ear earlier.
The speaker may find the meanings unrelated in spite of the fact that these are
derived form the same source. English crane “bird” and crane a “machine” may be
treated as unrelated although the latter is a figurative extension of the same. Zgusta
(1971, 85). In such cases the etymology is not relevant. An example from Nida may make
it clearer. The form stock may occur in three very different types of contexts,
e.g. He has a lot of stock in the warehouse.
He sells stocks and bonds.
He feeds the stock on his farm well.
Though historically these three sets of meanings are related, for many present day
speakers of English there seem to be no meaningful connections. (Nida,1975,13).
In some cases the figurative extensions of the meaning may not be recognizable by
the speakers.
e.g. in “He will foot the bill” the meaning of foot may not be related to foot “the part
of the body”. But if the meaning of foot which occurs in “the foot of the column” is taken
into consideration a relation may be established in the sense that a person pays the sum at the
foot of the bill. (Nida, 1975, 128)
In fact, the distinction between polysemy and homonymy is, in some cases, very
uncertain and as observed by Lyons (1968, 406) is “in the last resort indeterminate and
arbitrary”.