Ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèå íàóêè
/ 3. Òåîðåòè÷åñêèå è ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèå ïðîáëåìû
èññëåäîâàíèÿ ÿçûêà
Ph.D. S. V. Kiyko
National Yuri-Fedkovich-University of Chernivtsi, Ukraine
HOMONYMY:
A NEGATIV PHENOMENON?
Linguistic studies of word
meaning generally divide ambiguity into homonymy and polysemy. Homonymous words
exhibit idiosyncratic variation, with essentially unrelated senses, e.g. bank
as financial institution versus as natural object. The works of many linguists view homonymy as a negative phenomenon which
interferes with communication, complicates the perception of information, and
decreases the effectiveness of the language as a means of communication. R.
Bridges states that the language which has a lot of homonyms cannot be
comfortable to speak, not to mention its scientific use [Bridges
1919:
5]. O.O. Reformatskij suggests that “all cases of homonyms mark the absence
of precision of what must be precise” [Reformatskij 1967: 89].
The experimental research in the area of text perception shows that when given
the sentence with the ambiguous elements, the time of the recipient’s reaction
to the message is considerably increased [Foss/Jenkins 1973].
At the same time
some researches think that homonymy is a positive phenomenon which contributes to
the compactness of the language, and allows to economize the units of the plain
of content [Mauler 1983: 13].
R.O. Osmanova considers that it is impossible to convey all the thoughts with
only a dozen of sounds, that is why homonymy is a natural language process [Osmanova 1962: 52].
However, the most
authors solve the problem of homonymy’s benefits or drawbacks mostly in theory,
citing only several most vivid examples, without the processing of the sufficient
volume of material, in particular, without the consecutive analysis of homonyms
in the unilingual dictionaries.
The objective of our
research is to review the categoric statements according to which homonymy
causes interference in the process of communication, and to determine the
factors that differentiate the meaning of homonymic units, based on the broad
factual material. The study is based on the consecutive analysis of homonyms
selected from the Dictionary of the German Language Duden [Duden 2000], detailed with
the dictionaries of Wahrig [Wahrig 2006], Bünting [2000], and Langenscheidt [2006].
The object of the investigation is the homonymy of the Modern German nouns. The
subject are the criteria of their differentiation in language and speech.
The total number of
studied homonyms is 2128 lexical units combined into 1018 homonymic rows. Most homonymic rows have two components,
e.g. die Mutter1 “mother”,
die Mutter2 “nut”; die Beute1 “barrel”,
die Beute2 “prey”; the
total number of such pairs is 937 (1874 homonyms). We selected 72
three-component rows (216 homonyms), e.g. die
Messe1 “mass” (religious), die
Messe2 “fair”, die Messe3
“wardroom”; 8 four-component rows (32 homonyms), e.g. die Note1 “note” (musical), die Note2 “academic grade”, die Note3 “diplomatic note”, die Note4 “hue, undertone” etc. There is also one six-component
row: Atlas1 “one of the
Titans”, der Atlas2
“geographic atlas”, der Atlas3
“neck vertebra”, der Atlas4
“satin”, der Atlas5 “telamon”,
der Atlas6 “the mountain
in Africa”.
It is a known fact that in
the plane of content any homonymic group is characterized by the absence of the
interlexemic semantic ties. It means that in most cases homonyms must belong to
different lexico-semantic groups (LSGs), e.g.:
1) names of people referring
to their place of their residence → names of dishes: Berliner1 “ a citizen of Berlin” – Berliner3 “a doughnut with filling”, Lyoner1 – “ a citizen of
Lyons” – Lyoner3 “a sort
of sausage” etc;
2) names of people referring
to their age, gender, nationality, relations → names of dishes: Pinkel1 (coll.) “man” – Pinkel2 (Northern German) “a sort of sausage”, Kanncker1 “an old man” – Knacker2 “smoke-dried sausage”;
3) names of rivers
→ names of countries, lands, states, cities: der Senegal1 “the Senegal River” (Western Africa) – Senegal2 “Senegal” (the country), der Ohio1
“the Ohio River” (the tributary of the Mississippi) – Ohio2 “Ohio” (the US state);
4) names of countries,
states, lands → names of their capitals: Singapore, Washington, Mexico, Monako, Salzburg, Mosambik, Granada;
5) names of animals
→ names of diseases: Krebs1
“crayfish” – Krebs2 “cancer”, Star1
“starling” – Star2 “cataract“, Wolf1
“Wolf” – Wolf2
“lupus“;
6) names of animals →
names of mechanic parts: Hahn1
“rooster” – Hahn2 “water
tap”, Döbel1 “a type
of carp“ – Döbel2 “screw“;
7) names of cloth/fabric
→ types of clothing: Trikot1 “knitted fabric“ – Trikot1 “tights, leotard”, Reversible1
“two-sided fabric” – Reversible2 “two-sided clothes” etc.
In our research 86% of
all homonymic rows belong to different LSGs. It means that more than two-thirds
of homonymic nouns are semantically differentiated based on the fact that they
belong to different LSGs. 14% of homonymic nouns (298 homonyms, 138 homonymic
rows) belong to the same LSG. They are differentiated in various ways.
In most cases
homonyms are differentiated with the help of grammatical gender, e.g. der Assi1 “assistant”
(he) – die Assi2 “assistant”
(she), das Band1 “strip,
band” – der Band2 “book
volume” – die Band3 “band“.
Some nouns demonstrate gender fluctuations with the gradual change of gender, e.g.:
der/das Warp1 “tight yarn”
– der Warp2 “grapnel”, das Juwel “pearl” or “honey” (addressing
a person) – der/das Juwel “precious
stone”, der/das Merkur “mercury” – der Merkur “Mercury” (the planet) etc., which proves the tendency to differentiate homonyms
via the gradual change of grammatical gender. If the nouns belong to the same
grammatical gender, different form of plural may be used for their
differentiation (5 homonymic pairs), e.g. das
Wort1 “word” (plural Wörter)
– das Wort2 (plural Worte) “cue, catchword”, die Bildung1 (plural die Bildungen) “formation” – die Bildung2 (only
singular) “education” etc. In other cases the decisive role in the
differentiation of the complete homonymic nouns belongs to sociological, areal,
stylistic or chronological aspects, i.e. the homonyms are differentiated via
their belonging to different subsystems of lexis. Let us view these aspects in
detail.
It is a known
fact that the lexical system of any language comprises separate lexical
subsystems: 1) from the sociological aspect: generally used, social-dialectal,
and professional lexis; 2) from the areal aspect: nationwide and areally limited
(dialectal) lexis; 3) from the stylistic aspect: literary and colloquial lexis;
4) from the chronological aspect: modern, archaic lexis, and neologisms. Every
lexical subsystem interacts with other subsystems; they penetrate one another,
that is why it is not always easy to differentiate two subsystems. The
subsystem of lexis is the scientific abstraction, the same as language as contrasted
to speech. However, the notion of the subsystem helps to profoundly understand
the complicated mechanism of the lexical system in general, and also to
understand how homonyms are differentiated in the language system.
The greatest
number of the complete lexical homonymic nouns is differentiated with the help of
the restriction of the use of one of the homonyms by the areal dialect (16
homonymic pairs), e.g. der Beizer1
“etcher“– der Beizer2 (areal) “tavern keeper”, der Flaum1
(areal) “lard” – der Flaum2
“fluff“, die Butike1 (areal)
“shop” – die Butike2
“boutique”. Such homonyms are differentiated in areal aspect: one component of
the homonymic pair is used only in a definite part of the German-speaking
territory, and another one is a generally used word. For instance, dialectal
words das Heck2 (Northern German)
“pasture” and das Bord2
(Swiss) “slope, edge” are opposed to the generally used das Heck1 “stern” and das Bord1 “shelf”. If the speaker lives in
the area where a homonym is not used, then the speaker of the literary norm has
no homonymic opposition “dialectal : non-dialectal” because one member of the
homonymic pair is actually missing. So, for the speakers of Northern German
homonymy like der Kork1 “cork”
(material) – der Kork2 (Southern
German) “cork” will cause no misunderstanding in communication, as well as
cases like die Kote2 (Northern
German) “hut” – die Kote3
“tent” for Southern Germany. In the same manner speakers from Germany have no
difficulty with communication due to the existence of the homonymic pairs like der Hascher1 (Austrian coll.)
“poor wretch” – der Hascher2
(coll.) “hashish smoker”, der
Magistrat1 “magistrate” – der
Magistrat2 (Swiss) “municipal adviser” etc., where one component
of the pair is only used in Austria or Switzerland. When one of the homonyms is
used in a definite area, then for the speaker of the literary standard its very
dialectal nature is the decisive factor for homonymic differentiation. This
eliminates the danger of homonymic clash in speech. From the point of view of
the dialectal user the literary homonym does not interfere with the similarly
sounding dialectal word due to the fact that they belong to different lexical
subsystems.
It is interesting
to note that the homonyms das College1
(in Britain) “college, private school of higher education” – das College2 (in France,
Belgium) “college, higher school”, das
Empire1 “empire” (in France during the times of Napoleon) – das Empire2 “empire” (British
colonies) are differentiated indicating the country of the origin of the
corresponding notions. To some extent the differences between these homonyms
may be viewed as areally conditioned, though here we have a case of false
homonymy, similar to the interlanguage homonymy.
In 11 cases (22
homonyms) components of the homonymic pair belong to differrent social
subsystems, i.e. one homonym is generally used, and another one belongs to
terms or professional lexis, e.g. der
Homo1 (biol.) “a member of the human species” – der Homo2 “gay”, der Hermelin1 “ermine“ – der Hermelin1 (heraldry) “the
image of an ermine on the coat of arms” etc. From the point of view of
non-professionals homonymic groups of this type do not exist, as the speakers do
not know one of the homonyms in the group. Professionals who theoretically know
both homonyms do not mix them, as they usually correlate the professional term
with only one object, the one usual for them. For instance, the mathematical
term der Graph1 (math.)
“graph, line” is strictly separated from the linguistic term der Graph2 (ling.) “graph,
letter” by the area of its use. Here are some examples of professional
homonyms: 1) terms of chemistry: das
Chlorit1 (chem.) “salt of the chlorine acid” – das Chlorit2 “chlorite“
(mineral), das Selenit1
(chem.) “salt of the selenite acid“ – das Selenit2 “gypsum” (mineral). 2) naval terms: der Riemen1 “belt” – der Riemen2 (nav.) “oar”, der Gast1 “guest” – der Gast2 (nav.) “sailor”.
Misunderstanding may occur only in those cases where
both homonyms are the terms of the same science, e.g. die Finne1 (zool.) “larva” – die Finne2 (zool.) “fin” (of a fish). To avoid ambiguity
in such cases one homonym is substituted by its synonym, e.g. instead of die Finne1 “larva” the
synonym die Larve is more frequently
used.
One homonymic
pair illustrates the differences in the plain of generally used:
social-dialectal lexis: der Rex1
“king” – der Rex2 “headmaster”.
Five homonymic
pairs have their correlates among archaic lexis, i.e. they are differentiated
in chronological aspect. Such homonyms have modern synonyms in the language
system and thus they become obsolete, e.g. die
Base – die Cousine “cousin” (she), die
Schnur – die Schwiegertochter “daughter-in-law”, der Strauß – der Kampf “struggle” etc. Some homonyms became
obsolete because the notions they denote stopped playing any significant role
in the life of modern society, e.g. der
Real1 “real” (the old Spanish and Portuguese coin), die Lire1 “lira” (former
Italian currency). Such homonyms are limited in their use to the spheres of
historical novels and historical and cultural studies, and they have their homophone
correspondents in modern lexis, e.g. der
Real2 “real” (currency in Brazil), die Lire2 “lira” (Turkish currency). Archaic homonyms
are separated from their similarly sounding correlates by the fact that they
exist in a separate subsystem of lexis, e.g. der Gode1 (hist.) “a priest in ancient Iceland” – der Gode2 (or der Gote) “Goth”, die Schelle1 (arch.) “handcuff” – die Schelle2 (areal) “bell”.
Several homonyms
differ from their homophone correlates in their stylistic aspect: one member of
the homonymic row belongs to the subsystem of colloquial lexis, and another one
– to literary: e.g. der Skater1
(coll.) “skater” (on skates) – der Skater2
“skater“ (on a skateboard). The opposition of literary and colloquial is
apparently sufficient for their differentiation, e.g. die Domina1 “prioress” – die Domina2 (coll. euph.) “prostitute”. One homonym is
devoid of any coloring in the system of the language, i.e. is stylistically
neutral, while the other one has negative stylistic coloring, which practically
excludes their mixture in speech. Stylistic differentiation of the homophone
words also works when one of them has positive stylistic coloring, or belongs
to the elevated style, being, for instance, a poetic word. The homonymic correlate
of such a word usually has no stylistic coloring, e.g. das Heft1 (poet.) “handle” – das Heft2 “exercise book”, der Fels1 “rock” – der Fels2 (poet.) “cliff”. Both types of stylistically colored words differ from the
neutral lexis by their use in different spheres of speech: homonyms marked as
“colloquial” are mostly used in oral speech, and poetic words – in verse, poems,
ballads etc., while stylistically neutral homonyms are used in all types of
text. In the language system they are separated by the limits of lexical
subsystems.
Some complete homonyms
are solely differentiated by the fact that one of the elements of the homonymic
row is only used in set expressions, e.g. das
Geschäft1 “enterprise, company, shop” – das Geschäft2 (euph.) “bathroom
deeds” (is used in the expression sein
Geschäft verrichten “to do one's bathroom deeds“); der Plan1 “action” or “effect”
(only in set expressions jmdn., etw. auf
den Plan rufen “to urge to action”, auf
den Plan treten “to come into effect” – der
Plan2 “plan”, der Einstand1
“feast, party” (in the expression seinen
Einstand geben “to celebrate starting a new job”) – der Einstand2 “tie, draw”.
The above cited
criteria for homonymic differentiation are presented in Chart 1:
Chart 1
Criteria of Differentiation of the Homonymic Nouns
|
¹ |
Criteria of differentiation |
Number of rows |
Examples |
|
1 |
Different
LSGs |
876 |
der Hahn1 “rooster” – der
Hahn2 “water tap” |
|
2 |
Areally marked |
16 |
der Flaum1 (areal) “lard” – der
Flaum2 “fluff” |
|
3 |
Socially marked |
11 |
der Riemen1“belt” – der Riemen2
(nav.) “oar” |
|
4 |
Chronologically marked |
5 |
die Schelle1 (arch.) “handcuffs” – die
Schelle2 “bell” |
|
5 |
Stylistically marked |
4 |
der
Skater1 (coll.)
“skater” (on skates) – der
Skater2 “skater” (on a skateboard) |
|
6 |
Used in set expressions |
3 |
der Plan1 “action” – der Plan2
“plan” |
|
|
Total |
1001 |
|
Other
17 homonymic rows (34 homonyms) completely coincide in their grammatical form
and have no stylistic marking to differentiate them. Here belong toponyms (7
homonymic pairs), one of which denotes a country and another one –its capital: Mexiko “Mexico” (a country in the South
America) – Mexiko “Mexico City”; Salzburg “Salzburg” (the administrative
land in Austria) – Salzburg “Salzburg”
(the capital of this land) etc. The analysis of publicistic texts shows that
the differentiation of such nouns is based on the combinability of the homonyms
denoting cities with the prepositions bei,
bis or über, which are not
used with the names of countries and lands, e.g.: Aus dem
30. Stock lässt sich der Blick über Singapur genießen (fr-aktuell.de 05.01.2005); Anreise: Pkw Autobahn bis Salzburg (abendblatt.de 16.01.2005) etc. Sometimes we may also observe the lexicalization of
one of the homonyms, e.g. Mexiko-Stadt
“Mexico City” as opposed to Mexico
“Mexico” (the country), and in some cases the use of the names of cities and
countries is specified, e.g.: Rechtzeitig zum Mozart-Jahr 2006 will die
Stadt Salzburg etwa das ewige Rätsel um den Schädel Mozarts
lösen
(welt.de 07.01.2005); Etwa 70 Prozent der Aktien sind im Besitz des
Staates Monaco (welt.de 01.04.2005).
In
other cases the context is the main criterion of differentiation of the
homonymic proper names, for instance, when a proper name is used in the
sequence of other country or city names, which helps to understand the homonym,
e.g. Weitere 60 vertreten das Unternehmen in Taiwan, China, Korea, Singapur und den USA (welt.de
03.01.2005) (the name of the country); Die Redaktion sitzt nicht in Bangkok, Singapur oder Hongkong – sondern in Vietnams Hauptstadt Hanoi (fr-aktuell.de
05.01.2005) (the name of the city) etc.
Other
10 pairs of complete lexical homonyms have no grammatical, sociological,
areal, stylistic or chronological marking to help differentiate them. They also
belong to the same LSG, e.g. der Paprika1
“paprica” – der Paprika2 “red
pepper” (LSG “Plants”), der Bauer1 “peasant” – der Bauer2 “builder” (LSG “Social
status”), die Burka1 “coat“
– die Burka2 “paranja“
(LSG “Clothes”), die Kassette1
“cassette” – die Kassette2
“small chest”, and das Bändchen1
“strip, band” – das Bändchen2
“small book volume” (LSG “Artifacts”), die
Löschung1 “avoidance, acquittance” – die Löschung2 “unloading”, die Einladung1 “loading” – die Einladung2 “invitation”, die Ausfütterung1 “lining“ – die Ausfütterung2 “fattening“, die Abfütterung1 “fattening“
– die Abfütterung2 “lining“
(LSG “Actions”), die Folge1
“sequence; series; episode” – die Folge2
“consequence” (LSG “Abstract notions”). Their number is too small to cause any
obstacles in communication (0,01 % of all homonymic rows). Apparently, context
(both linguistic and extra-linguistic) is the only criterion of their differentiation.
As
we can see, the fact that most homonymic nouns belong to different LSGs, and
that those belonging to the same LSG can be differentiated with the help of
various grammatical indices and stylistic markings, allows to quite accurately
differentiate their meaning. It means that the language feels practically no
inconvenience due to the existence of homonyms.
The
prospects of the further research lies in the comparison of the components of intralinguistic homonymic rows based on
the category of markedness, which correlates with the cognitive operator of
norm / deviation. It will allow us to describe homonyms as viewed by the cognitive operator
of norm.
Acknowledgements
This
project was made possible by a generous research grant from the Erasmus Mundus
Research Program. I am heartily thankful to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Christine
Römer, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, whose support enabled me
to develop an understanding of the subject.
1.
Bridges R.S.
On English Homophones / Bridges R.S.
// Society for Pure English Tract. –
Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1919. – 48 p.
2.
Foss
D. J. Some effects of context on the comprehension of ambiguous sentences /
Foss D. J., Jenkins C. M. // Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. –
1973. – Nr. 12. – P. 577–589.
3.
Mauler F.I. Grammatičeskaja omonimija v sovremennom anglijskom jazyke / F.I. Mauler. – Rostov : Izd-vo Rost. un-ta, 1983. – 136 s.
4.
Osmanova R.À. Î javlenii omonii v lesginskom literaturnom jazyke / R.À. Îsmanova // Učenyje zapiski Azerb. gos. un-ta. – Baku : Izd-vî Àzerb. gos. un-tà,
1962. – S.
57–64.
5.
Reformatskij À.À. Vvedenije v jazykoznanije / À.À. Reformatskij – Ì. : Prosveshenije,
1967. – 542 s.