<<
>>

§ 38. Formal Criteria: Distri bution and

The criterion of distribution suggested by some linguists is undoubtedly helpful, but mainly in cases of lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonymy. For example, in the homonymic pair paper « — (to) paper v the noun may be preceded by the article and followed by a verb; (to) paper can never be found in identical distribution.

This formal criterion can be used to discriminate not only lexico-grammatical but also grammatical homonyms, but it often fails in cases of lexical homonymy, not differentiated by means of spelling.

Homonyms differing in graphic form, e.g. such lexical homonyms as knight — night or flower — flour, are easily perceived to be two different lexical units as any formal difference of words is felt as indicative of the existence of two separate lexical units. Conversely lexical homonyms identical both in pronunciation and spelling are often apprehended as different meanings of one word.

It is often argued that in general the context in which the words are used suffices to establish the borderline between homonymous words, e.g.

the meaning of case1 in several cases of robbery can be easily differentiated from the meaning of case2 in a jewel case, a glass case. This however is true of different meanings of the same word as recorded in dictionaries, e.g. of case, as can be seen by comparing the case will be tried in the law-court and the possessive case of the noun.

1 See �Semasiology’, § 23, p. 31. 44

Thus, the context serves to differentiate meanings but is of little help in distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy. Consequently we have to admit that no formal means have as yet been found to differentiate between several meanings of one word and the meanings of its homonyms.

In the discussion of the problems of polysemy and homonymy we proceeded from the assumption that the word is the basic unit of language.1 Some linguists hold that the basic and elementary units at the semantic level of language are the lexico-semantic variants of the word, i.e. individual word-meanings. In that case, naturally, we can speak only of homonymy of individual lexico-semantic variants, as polysemy is by definition, at least on the synchronic plane, the coexistence of several meanings in the semantic structure of the word.

<< | >>
Èñòî÷íèê: R. S. Ginzburg S. S. Khidekel, G. Y. Knyazeva, A. A. Sankin. A COURSE IN MODERN ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY. 1979

Åùå ïî òåìå § 38. Formal Criteria: Distri bution and:

  1. Ëèòåðàòóðà
  2. 3. Ñâÿçè (Links)
  3. Áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêèé ñïèñîê ê ðàçäåëó II
  4. Introduction
  5. Ë.Î. Äîë³íåíêî, Â.Î. Äîë³íåíêî, Ñ.Î. Ñàðíîâñüêà. Öèâ³ëüíå ïðàâî Óêðà¿íè, 2006
  6. ÖȲËÜÍÅ ÏÐÀÂÎ ÓÊÐÀ¯ÍÈ
  7. ÏÅÐÅÄÌÎÂÀ
  8. ×àñòèíà ² ÏÐÎÃÐÀÌÀ ÊÓÐÑÓ «ÖȲËÜÍÅ ÏÐÀÂÎ ÓÊÐÀ¯ÍÈ»
  9. Ðîçä³ë ². Çàãàëüí³ ïîëîæåííÿ öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà
  10. Òåìà 1. Ïîíÿòòÿ öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà. Ïðåäìåò òà ìåòîä, ñèñòåìà öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà. Ôóíêö³¿ òà ïðèíöèïè öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà
  11. Òåìà 2. Öèâ³ëüíå çàêîíîäàâñòâî Óêðà¿íè
  12. Òåìà 3. Ïîíÿòòÿ, åëåìåíòè òà âèäè öèâ³ëüíèõ ïðàâîâ³äíîñèí
  13. Òåìà 4. Çä³éñíåííÿ öèâ³ëüíèõ ïðàâ ³ âèêîíàííÿ îáîâ’ÿçê³â
  14. Òåìà 5. Çàõèñò öèâ³ëüíèõ ïðàâ òà ³íòåðåñ³â
  15. Òåìà 6. Îá’ºêòè öèâ³ëüíèõ ïðàâ
  16. Òåìà 7.Ô²ÇÈ×Ͳ îñîáè ÿê ñóá’ºêòè öèâ³ëüíîãî ïðàâà