Homonym clashes

As homonyms are words which share the same form, there might be a danger of homonymous clashes in the sense that two words with absolutely different meanings may both make sense in the same utterance. Consider the following utterances:

The night was short (part of the day)

The knight was short (

Jane didn’t like the flour ( the substance)

Jane didn’t like the flower (the plant).

The main reason for not having a homonym clash is not even the difference in word class and the difference in spelling, but the difference in overall context. Consider the following pairs of homonyms: lead (noun) vs lead (verb), stick (verb) vs stick (noun). These words, apart from difference in meaning and the word class, can hardly occur interchangeably in the same context. The distribution between such words is complementary in the sense that the context, in which one word occurs, does not presuppose the other word. Besides, since each member of the pair differs in the word class, the choice of the one homonym instead of the other is determined by the rules of syntax.

Homonyms do not present any harm to language since they belong to different word classes (nose (noun) and knows (verb)), apart from that it is difficult to imagine the context, in which both words could come together. Moreover, homonymy is a source of humor, based on word play in which homonyms substitute each other or are used in an inappropriate context.

Homonyms in English cause trouble for lexicographers, since they can be listed either as separate headwords or under one headword. For example:

hooker1 – a commercial fishing boat using hooks and lines instead of nets;

hooker2 – a person or thing that hooks.

At first glance, it would be natural to include the meaning of hooker1 into a more general meaning of hooker2. But the basic criterion lexicographers use to identify homonyms (homographs) is etymology: if two or more different origins can be identified for the same spelling, then the orthographic word is entered as many types as there are different etymologies. In the case of hooker, the first homograph is identified as a loanword from Dutch hoeker in the seventeenth century, and second is the derivation by means of the suffix –er from the verb hook, which has its origin in the Old English hoc.

Another example is the word line, which has three homographs based on the word class membership – a noun, a verb and an adjective. It has entered four times into LDOCE on the basis of etymology; it has its origin in Middle English linen, derived from lin, the Old English foe flax, which developed into modern English linen. The other entries for line originate from Old French ligner, though this word goes back to a Latin word meaning ‘made of flax’.

For any orthographic word, therefore, for which a lexicographer identifies multiple meanings, a decision must be made whether different meanings arise from polysemy or because they are homographs. The lexicographer applies a criterion of etymology, according to dictionary policy, that of word class membership. If the criteria are satisfied, then multiple headwords are entered in the dictionary. If not, then a single headword is entered with multiple meanings or senses.

English has a non-phonetic writing system, in the sense that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the letters in writing and the sounds in the pronunciation of words. Consequently, writing often helps to differentiate between the words which are identical in sound. Writing provides a quick and easy way of removing confusion. For example, if there is any misunderstanding between the speakers concerning homonyms like knight and night or right or write, they may spell the words to avoid confusion.

Most scholars agree that there is no clear-cut dividing line between polysemy and homonymy. The major difficulty is to distinguish how far meanings have to diverge in people’s minds before they treat them as separate words.