- •English Lexicology
- •Preface
- •Organization and Content
- •Contents
- •Part I: Introduction
- •1.2 Methods and Procedures of Lexicological Analysis
- •Part II: The Structure of the English Lexicon
- •2.1 Words and Their Associative Fields
- •2.2 Word Families
- •2.3 Word Classes
- •2.4 Semantic, or Lexical, Fields
- •3.1 Synchronic Approach to the Structure of the English Vocabulary
- •3.1.1 Common, Literary, and Colloquial layers
- •3.1.2 Neologisms
- •3.2 Diachronic Approach: Etymological Survey of the English Word-Stock
- •3.2.1 Definition of Etymology
- •3.2.2 English Lexemes of Native Origin
- •3.2.3 Borrowed, or Loan, Lexemes
- •3.2.4 Classification of Borrowings according to the Degree of Assimilation
- •3.2.5 Etymological Doublets and Triplets
- •3.2.6 Folk Etymology
- •Part IV: The Word
- •4.1 Defining a Word
- •4.2 Morphological Structure of Words
- •4.2.1 Free and Bound Morphemes
- •4.2.2 Roots and Affixes
- •4.2.3 Stems
- •4.2.4 Types of affixes
- •4.2.5 Derivational and Functional Affixes
- •Inflection of Derived or Compound Words
- •4.2.6 Cliticization
- •4.2.7 Internal Change/Alternation
- •4.2.8 Suppletion
- •4.2.9 Reduplication
- •Part V: Word-Formation
- •5.1 Derivation/Affixation
- •5.1.1 Types of Derivational Affixes
- •5.2 Stress and Tone Placement
- •5.3 Compounding
- •5.3.1 Classification of Compounds
- •5.3.2 Endocentric and Exocentric Compounds
- •5.4 Reduplication
- •5.5 Conversion
- •5.6 Blend(ing)
- •5.7 Eponyms
- •5.8 Backformation
- •5.9 Clipping
- •5.10 Acronyms and Abbreviations
- •Part VI: Semantics
- •6.1 Types of Semantics
- •6.2 Word-Meaning
- •6.3 Types of Meaning
- •6.3.1 Grammatical Meaning
- •6.3.2 Lexical Meaning
- •6.3.3 Denotative Meaning
- •6.3.4 Connotative Meaning
- •6.3.5 Differential Meaning
- •6.3 6 Distributional Meaning
- •6.4 Phonetic, Morphological, and Semantic Motivation of Words
- •6.5 Semantics and Change of Meaning
- •7.1 Similarity of Sense
- •7.2 Oppositeness of Sense
- •7.3 Sense Categories: Hyponymy
- •7.4 Sense Categories: Meronymy
- •7.5 Related Senses
- •7.6 Unrelated Senses: Homonymy
- •7.7 Semantic Deviance
- •Part VIII: Word Groups and Phraseological Units
- •8.1 Basic Features of Word-groups
- •8.2 Phraseology
- •8.3 Definition of a Phraseological Unit
- •8.4 The Criteria of Phraseological Units
- •8.5 Classification of phraseologisms
- •8.6 The Origin of Phraseological Units
- •8.6.1 Native Phraseological Units
- •8.6.2 Borrowed Phraseological Units
- •8.7 Semantic Structure of Phraseological Units
- •8.8 Phraseological Meaning
- •8.9 Semantic Relations of Phraseological Units
- •8.9.1 Similarity of Sense
- •8.9.2 Oppositeness of Sense
- •9.1 Differences in Vocabulary between American and British English
- •9.2 Spelling Differences between American and British English
- •7.3 Grammatical Differences between American and British English
- •Part X: Lexicography
- •10.1 Main Types of Dictionaries
- •10.1.1 Non-linguistic Dictionaries: Encyclopaedias
- •10.1.2 Linguistic Dictionaries
- •Imitation
- •Glossary
7.6 Unrelated Senses: Homonymy
Words that sound the same but have different (unrelated) meanings are called homonyms (Greek homeos = ‘same’, onoma = ‘name’). Homonyms are either pronounced or spelled like another, or sometimes they are spelled and pronounced alike but have different meanings. Homonyms which are spelled alike but have differences in pronunciation and meaning are called homographs, e.g., bow (a show of respect or submission)—bow (a flexible strip for firing arrows or something bent into a simple curve); lead (position at the front) -- lead (an insulated electrical conductor connected to an electrical device). Homonyms which are pronounced alike but have differences in spelling and meaning are called homophones, e.g., I—eye, knight—night, sole—soul, gorilla—guerilla, to—too—two, bear—bare, brake—break, scent—sent, jeans—genes, waive—wave, buy—bye, and others. Homophones are often the basis for puns, e.g., Seven days without chocolate make one weak. The sign said, “Fine for parking here,” and since it was fine, I parked there. Homonyms which are pronounced and spelled alike but have different meanings are called homonyms proper, e.g. bear (to have children)—bear (tolerate)—bear (to carry)—bear (animal) and tear (to rip)—tear (to fill with tears), and others.
James B. Hobbs, who compiled a dictionary, Homophones and Homograph (1930), differentiates homonyms, homophones, and homographs. He defines homonym as “one of two or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning” (p.7). Homophone is defined as “one of two or more words pronounced alike but different in meaning or derivation or spelling” (p.7). Homograph is “one of two or more words spelled alike but different in meaning or derivation or pronunciation” (p.7). In his dictionary, Hobbs sharply distinguishes these three categories.
Several linguists have addressed the question: Do homophones tend to self-destruct because of their tendency to create confusion and ambiguity? Jules Gilliéron states that “two words of different origin that become homophones by regular sound changes may, because of ambiguity and confusion, interfere with each other to such an extent that one is ultimately driven from the vocabulary of a particular dialect” (as cited in Hobbs, 1999, p.7). The scholars refer to this hypothesis as a conflict of homophones; however, Professor Robert Menner of Yale University argues that if there was a loss of a homophonous word, then it should not be attributed only to a conflict of homophones. He believes that “two homophones are unlikely to interfere unless they belong to the same part of speech, and if they do, then words must fall within the same sphere of ideas and be likely to appear in similar contexts” (as cited in Hobbs, 1999, p. 8). Menner asserts it is possible that “a combination of alike sounds representing two different words could become ambiguous, and the resultant confusion is so marked as to lead to elimination of one of the words” (1936, p.229). Homophonous words may disappear not only because of a conflict of homophones but also because they may become obsolete in the course of language development.