This paper is concerned with the linguistic phenomena of homonymy and polysemy. The term homonymy goes back to the Greek words "homós", meaning "the same", and "ónoma", meaning name. A simplified translation of homonymy would be "having the same name".
The term polysemy goes back to the Greek language, too. It is composed of the words "polys", meaning "a lot of", and "sema", which can be translated with "meaning". Simply said polysemy is the phenomenon of one word carrying different meanings.
Homonymy as well as polysemy are rather complex linguistic phenomena. Both have been discussed in connection with each other for a long time. The central point of discussion is the question whether one is confronted with different lexical items which are formally identical, i.e. homonymy, or whether there is just one single lexical item with different meanings, i.e. polysemy. This is especially important with regard to lexicography. It plays also a role in connection with the classification of word classes.
Different criteria have been introduced to distinguish clearly between homonymy and polysemy. Nevertheless, the question remains whether an unambiguous distinction can really be made. This question will be discussed in the following paper.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Lexical Entry, Lexical Unit and Lexeme
3. The Concept of the Binary Sign by Ferdinand de Saussure
4. Paradigmatic Relations between Lexical Items
5. The Differentiation between Homonymy and Polysemy
5.1. Etymology
5.2. Formal Identity or Distinctness
5.3. Close Semantic Relatedness
5.4. Lipka´s Conclusions
6. The Identification of Word Classes
7. Analysis
7.1. Way of Procedure
7.2. Virginia Woolf: To the Lighthouse
7.3. Comparison of the verb to tear (zerreißen) and the noun tear (die Träne)
7.4. Comparison of the verb to dust (abstauben) and the noun dust (der Staub)
8. Conclusions
Objectives and Research Focus
The paper examines the complex linguistic phenomena of homonymy and polysemy, specifically investigating the criteria required to distinguish between them. The primary research goal is to determine whether an unambiguous differentiation between these phenomena is possible, particularly when analyzing the classification of word classes and the effects of zero-derivation.
- Theoretical definitions of lexical entries, units, and lexemes.
- Application of Saussure’s binary sign concept to lexical relationships.
- Evaluation of criteria such as etymology, formal identity, and semantic relatedness.
- Practical analysis of selected lexical items in Virginia Woolf's "To the Lighthouse".
- Discussion on the role of zero-derivation in word class identification.
Excerpt from the Book
7.3. The verb to tear (zerreißen) in comparison with the noun tear (die Träne)
In this example we are confronted with two words as representatives of two different word classes. Both show the same formative or signifiant. At first glance one would probably consider these words as being homonyms rather than polysemes, because the main criterion to ´diagnose` polysemy is not effective here: there is no obvious semantic relation between the two meanings of tear. Furthermore polysemy can be excluded for the reason that we have two words belonging to different word classes, whereas polysemy describes relations of lexical units within one word category. Nevertheless, a more detailed investigation has to be done.
Tearing as it is used in sentence IV can easily be identified as the progressive form of a verb, since it shows the typical ending –ing. As the present participle of the infinitive form to tear it introduces the subordinate clause. Present participles unite typical features of verbs and adjectives. Formally they belong to the class of verbs, but their function is similar to that of adjectives: they function as complements of the finite verb, as attributes of the subject or as an adverbial (cf Ungerer et alii 1984, 168). In the given example the present participle functions as the adverbial of the main clause and expresses the mode in which the action of the main clause takes place. Furthermore it signals simultaneity. To summarize tearing as the present participle of to tear belongs to the word class of verbs.
Chapter Summary
1. Introduction: Outlines the basic definitions of homonymy and polysemy and highlights the central problem of distinguishing between them in lexicography.
2. Lexical Entry, Lexical Unit and Lexeme: Defines the core terminology required for analyzing word meanings and the assignment of dictionary entries.
3. The Concept of the Binary Sign by Ferdinand de Saussure: Discusses the relationship between form (signifiant) and meaning (signifié) as the basis for understanding lexical relations.
4. Paradigmatic Relations between Lexical Items: Explains how homonymy and polysemy differ in terms of paradigmatic vs. intralexemic relationships.
5. The Differentiation between Homonymy and Polysemy: Evaluates specific linguistic criteria like etymology and formal identity to distinguish between the two phenomena.
6. The Identification of Word Classes: Analyzes the difficulties of classifying words due to phenomena like zero-derivation in Modern English.
7. Analysis: Applies the theoretical criteria to practical examples from Virginia Woolf's prose.
8. Conclusions: Summarizes findings and suggests that homonymy and polysemy represent ends of a scale rather than absolute opposites.
Keywords
Homonymy, Polysemy, Lexicography, Zero-derivation, Binary sign, Etymology, Lexical unit, Lexeme, Word class, Semantics, Syntactic features, Morphological features, Signifiant, Signifié, Linguistic phenomena.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper investigates the linguistic distinction between homonymy and polysemy and the challenges involved in categorizing words based on their meanings and word classes.
What are the primary thematic fields covered?
The central themes include lexical semantics, the theory of the binary sign, word class classification, and the historical development of words through etymological analysis.
What is the primary research question?
The paper asks whether it is possible to make an unambiguous distinction between homonymy and polysemy and to what extent criteria such as etymology and word class identity are effective for this purpose.
Which methodology is employed in the study?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, applying linguistic criteria (morphological, syntactic, and etymological) to interpret selected lexical items in a literary context.
What does the main body address?
The main body establishes the theoretical framework for lexical entries, reviews existing linguistic criteria for distinguishing meanings, and conducts a case study on specific English verbs and nouns.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The work is defined by concepts such as homonymy, polysemy, zero-derivation, paradigmatic relations, and the sign-concept of Ferdinand de Saussure.
How does the author treat the phenomenon of zero-derivation?
The author views zero-derivation as a significant challenge for word class identification, as it allows words to function across multiple categories without morphological change, complicating the definition of polysemy.
What is the conclusion regarding the distinction between homonymy and polysemy?
The author concludes that these phenomena are not absolute opposites but should be regarded as two ends of a scale with a continuum in between, making an absolute distinction in every case impossible.
- Quote paper
- Hendrikje Schulze (Author), 2001, The identification of word classes in connection with the differentiation between homonymy and polysemy, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/21511
