II. R.S. Ginsburg and others

Ginsburg R.S and other linguists classify all cases of homonymy into full and partial homonymy - i.e. homonymy of words and homonymy of individual word-forms. In case words are homonymous in all their forms we observe full homonymy (seal 1 - тюлень, seal 2 – печать). In other cases, e.g. seal 1 - тюлень, to seal—скреплять печатью, we see that only some individual word-forms are homonymous seals (n pl) - seals v (he seals), but: the forms sealed, sealing are not observed in the paradigm of the noun "seal". In such cases we speak of partial homonymy. The bulk of full homonyms are to be found within the same parts of speech (seal n1 - seal n2); partial homonymy as a rule is observed in word-forms belonging to different parts of speech (seal n - seal v).

Homonyms may be also classified by type of meaning into lexical, lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonyms. In seal n 1 and seal n2 the part-of-speech meaning of the words and the grammatical meaning of all its forms are identical. The difference between the two words is confined to the lexical meaning only (тюлень, печать). These are lexical homonyms because they differ in lexical meaning. If we compare seal n1 (тюлень) and to seal v (скреплять печатью) we shall observe not only a difference in the lexical meaning of their homonymous word-forms but a difference in their grammatical meanings as well. Identical sound-forms, i.e. seals (Common Case Plural of the Noun) and (he) seals (3d person singular or the verb) possess different grammatical meanings. As both grammatical and lexicai meanings differ, we describe these homonymous word-forms as lexico-grammatical. Modern English abounds in homonymic word-forms differing in grammatical meaning only. In the paradigms of the majority of verbs the form of the Past tense is homonymous with the form of Participle II (asked- [a:skt]- asked). These аге grammatical homonyms. Grammatical homonymy is the homonymy of different word-forms of one and the same word. Lexico-grammatical homonyms may be subdivided into two groups: A . identical in sound- form but different in their grammatical and lexical meaning (seal n — seal v); B. identical in sound-form but different in their grammatical meanings and partly different in their lexical meanings (paper n — paper v). The noun paper has 5 meanings, the verb "to paper" has only 1 meaning (to cover with wallpaper).

Thus Ginsburg R.S., Knyaseva G.Y. and other Soviet linguists consider members of conversion pairs to be lexico-grammatical homonyms. I.S. Tyshler, author of "A Dictionary of Homonyms" does not accept this point of view.

SOURCES OF HOMONYMY

The two main sources of homonymy are: 1) diverging meaning development of a polysemantic word; 2) converging sound development of two or more different words. Thе 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. The phenomenon is also known as disintegration or split of polysemy. This happened, e.g. in the case of Modem English "flower" — цветок and "flour" — мука., which originally were one word. ME “flour” meant the “flower and the finest part of wheat”. The difference in spelling underlines the fact, that from synchronic point of view they are two distinct words even though historically they have a common origin.

2) The great majority of homonyms arise as a result of converging sound development which leads to the coincidence of two or more words which phonetically distinct at an earlier date. For example, OE ic and OE ea e have become identical in pronunciation. (Mod. E I [ai] and eye [ai].

One of the most debatable problems in semasiology is the demarcation line between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between homonymous words and between different meanings of one word. Synchronically the differentiation between homonymy and polysemy is as a rule wholly based on the semantic criterion. It 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 a case of homonymy, not polysemy. However, the semantic criterion is very vague and subjective. A more or less simple procedure of distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy may be promted by transformational analysis. It may be called explanatory transformation. The procedure was offered by I.V. Arnold in her dissertation. Let’s examine the following set of examples:

1. A child’s voice is heard.

2. His voice was annoyingly well-bred.

3. In the voice contrast of active and passive the active is the unmarked form.

In the first example voice1 may be defined as “sounds uttered in speaking or singing”; voice2 is defined as a “ mode of uttering sounds in speaking or singing”.

These definitions contain one and the same kernel element (semantic component) of the meanings of voice1 and voice2. It is, however, to use the same kernel element for the meaning of voice3. The definition of voice3 is the form of the verb that expresses the relation of the subject to the action”. The failure to satisfy the same explanation formula sets the third meaning apart. Thus voice3 is a homonym to the polysemantic word embracing voice1 and voice2. We may sum up the discussion by pointing out that distinction between polysemy and homonymy is relevant and important for lexicography.