Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Litera
Reference:

Criteria for distinguishing homonymy from polysemous words (psycholinguistic method).

Lastochkina Elena Grigor'evna

PhD in Philology

Associate Professor, Department of Mari Language and Literature, Mari State University

424019, Russia, Republic of Mari El, Yoshkar-Ola, pl. Lenin str., 1

antrolea@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8698.2024.2.69594

EDN:

XPNIUS

Received:

16-01-2024


Published:

06-03-2024


Abstract: The subject of the study are homonyms and polysemous words. The problem of homonymy and polysemy always raises many questions, because sometimes there is no clear boundary where ambiguity ends and homonymy begins. Indeed, the boundary between homonymy and polysemy is unstable, permeable, it is constantly violated, and not only by polysemy, when, due to the loss of an "intermediate link", the connection between the individual meanings of a polysemantic word is lost, and it splits into two different homonymous words, but also (which is noted by only a few authors) by Homonymy is when, due to the action of various kinds of reasons, a semantic connection arises between two homonymous words and these words merge into one polysemantic word.The purpose of the article is to distinguish homonyms from polysemous words using an experiment between native speakers, by identifying homonymous words among respondents.  In this article, special attention is paid to the differentiation of these phenomena by the psycholinguistic method. The author also uses a descriptive method when conducting research. The lexical richness of any language is words that are related to each other, but have different meanings and perform different functions. In colloquial speech, some words are close to each other in meaning, while others are opposite in their semantics. Some words, while not being close in content, can be similar to each other in appearance, shape, spelling and pronunciation. A group of such words in the lexical system of the language is commonly called homonyms. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that the author for the first time made an attempt to distinguish homonymy and polysemous words in the Mari language using a psycholinguistic method. The main conclusions of the article are that the conducted associative experiment is one of the most effective ways to distinguish between two lexical phenomena. Of course, the nature of associations is influenced by age, geographical conditions, a person's profession, as well as the level of proficiency in the Mari language, but, nevertheless, the opinions of respondents mostly coincide with lexicographic data.


Keywords:

homonyms, polysemy, lexicology, psycholinguistics, mari language, semantics, associative experiment, lexical homonyms, homoforms, homographs

This article is automatically translated.

 

Polysemy (from Greek polys?mos – "polysemous") – polysemy; the ability of a word to have two or more meanings. Homonymy (from Greek. homonymia – "homonymy") is a sound and/or graphic coincidence of linguistic units that differ in meaning. Through polysemy and homonymy, the communicative and cognitive functions of language are realized: knowledge and experience are transmitted through linguistic means limited by the nature of language. [1, p. 48].

Homonymy is the result of a historical or accidental coincidence of linguistic signs with a complete difference in their content; the result of both internal linguistic transformations (for example, a disintegrated polysemy) and changes that led to an intersection, coincidence with other languages, which allows us to speak about the manifestation of one of the aspects of translinguism. This aspect of translinguism, associated with certain coincidences in language, has always been of interest to linguistics scholars. For example, already in the linguistics of ancient times we can find the definition of homonyms, in particular in Aristotle [2, p. 52].

Semantic differences between the uses of words may be related to social, psychological differences between people using this word. For each person, one or another word is associated with a specific system of associations, with an individual system of knowledge about the world, with individual experience [3, p. 157]. So, for example, a person who is not a specialist in the relevant field of veterinary medicine associates the word purtash with a verb in the meaning of ‘to let in, to import’, and for a specialist this word has another meaning purtash vet. ‘bloating (cow disease)'.

After analyzing the criteria for distinguishing homonymy and polysemy in the Mari language, we decided that the semantic side of the word plays the main role [4-6], but even in this case, we cannot say for sure whether this unit is polysemy or homonymy[7, p. 569].

As stated by S. M. Potapov: "It is necessary to know how the majority of speakers of a given language perceive the analyzed phenomena and proceed from this" [8, p. 49].

B. N. Golovin also noted that a lexicographer should not rely only on his own linguistic flair [9, p. 82]. O. N. Seliverstova believed that hypotheses that can be obtained using component analysis "should be tested using experimental research methods" [10, p. 169]; the importance of using experimental techniques in the field of semantic research was pointed out by V. M. Pavlov [11, p. 153]; indications of linguistic consciousness and experimental methods form the basis of their dissertations by O. P. Boldin [12, p. 21], I. V. Tubalov [13, p. 249], applying them, in particular including in the analysis of lexical and semantic motivation.

Our experiment is based on Kachurin's experience in distinguishing polysemy from homonymy in his dissertation "The problem of distinguishing homonymy and polysemy in relation to the practice of compiling explanatory dictionaries" (2013), where we will try to offer support as a verification method on the testimony of the linguistic consciousness of native speakers using the method of psycholinguistic experiment.

The following questions were put to the interviewees: Do you think there are grounds for calling the phenomena X and Y the same, is there anything in common between them? If so, why do you think these phenomena are called the same? We also ask the respondent one more question: "How significant, unrealistic do you consider such a connection? Rate it on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not obvious, far—fetched, barely detectable, fragile, 5 is obvious, very durable." This question performs two functions at once: first, it forces the respondent to think again about his own answer and thereby check himself; secondly, with the help of this question, asked to each respondent, we will be able to calculate the average result for each pair of values using the arithmetic mean formula and thus obtain a certain "the coefficient of semantic connectedness" (hereinafter referred to as KSS) of the average native speaker, thereby fulfilling the first condition (to see the average result for each case). The respondent's failure to detect a semantic connection is evaluated as zero. We propose such a distribution of pairs of values in the three named classes, depending on their KSS: homonyms — KSS<2; transitional class — 2?KSS<4; polysemy — KSS?4 [14, pp. 245-246].

We have chosen the words taking into account such conditions: 1) at least one of the dictionaries considers these meanings as belonging to one word; 2) homonymy is recorded in all dictionaries included in the sample, but our own linguistic intuition tells us that a semantic connection is possible between the meanings [Ibid., p. 256].

Our respondents were students and graduates of the Faculty of Philology. We believe that this category of people can answer our questions objectively and give an accurate assessment of the semantic connection between words.

During the survey, we received 1000 language reactions (40 respondents were offered 26 pairs of meanings). Here are examples of each value and the total KCC:

- igeche I ‘weather’ – igeche II ‘age’: possibly age, as the passage of time and changing as the weather; CCSS = 2.22;

- II I ‘year' – II II ‘ice': no similarity found; General. = 0,91;

- iqt?rlik I is ‘the same’ – iqt?rlik II the second value is not defined by anyone (iqt?rlik II mat. ‘equality');

- Yyzhy? I ‘chapter’ – yyzhy? II ‘strength': the similarity is not specified, but it is; KSSC = 1.08;

- Yilme I ‘language as the Mari language’ – Yilme II ‘human organ': language (organ) as a means of implementing a language (a system of sound and other means); CCSS = 2.44;

- ketch I ‘the sun’ – ketch II ‘the day': the similarity is that the day is the time interval from sunrise to sunset; CCSS = 3.05;

- case I ‘partition' – case II ‘one part in performances': similarity in function, because the partition performs the function of dividing rooms into two parts, and in performances one part is divided into another conditionally; CCSS = 1.40;

- mogyr I ‘body’ – mogyr II ‘side': similarity in terms of orientation, as the right or left side of the body; CCSS = 1.45;

- need I ‘nettle' – need II ‘pike, letters. in Mari, the nettle fish’: similarity in appearance; CCSS = 0.74;

- optem I ‘yolk' – optem II ‘perga, flower pollen’, folded into honeycomb cells; CCSS = 1.14;

- sem I ‘melody' – sem II the second meaning is not defined (sem II ‘sense, mind, mind’);

- sola I ‘yal’ – sola II ‘whip‘, but in most cases the second value was considered as sola ’mows', ch., 3 l., unit h.: no similarity was found: CCSS = 0.10;

- beat I ‘rhythm’ – beat II ‘sense of proportion': similarity in function – beat as observance of certain rules, norms; CCSS = 3.2;

- volume I ‘volume of the book' – volume II ‘core': some functional similarity, volume as the basis; CCSS = 0.88;

- tylze I ‘moon’ – tylze II ‘month': functional similarity – month is a unit of time measurement associated with the Moon's orbit around the Earth; CCSS = 3.85;

- check I ‘document’ – check II ‘border': no similarity found; CCSS = 0.21;

- chyvytan I ‘leech’ – chyvytan II ‘tweezers': similarity in function; CCSS = 1.29;

- ball I ‘globe' – ball II ‘ponytail': no similarity found; CCSS = 0.28;

- shozh I ‘barley, grain crop’ – shozh II ‘eye disease': external similarity; CCSS = 0.91;

- shotlymash I ‘counting’ – shotlymash II ‘reverence': although no similarity was found, nevertheless, to read from the word count, i.e. the connection is present; KSSC = 0.80;

- shoya I ‘fairy tale’ – shoya II ‘lies’; the content of fairy tales is fiction, i.e. lies; CCSS = 2.29;

- sh?r I ‘the edge, the native place’ – sh?r II ‘milk’: no similarity was found; CCSS = 0.28;

- neck I ‘neck’ – neck II ‘coal': no similarity found; CCSS = 0.91;

- sh?m I ‘heart’ – sh?m II ‘tree bark’: a similarity was found in the fact that the heart, as the basis of a person, and the bark is of great importance to the tree; CCSS = 1.38;

- shishpyk I ‘nightingale’ – shishpyk II ‘whistle': similarity in function – both whistle; CCSS = 2.97;

- shyrpe I ‘matches’ – shyrpe II ‘splinter': similarity in appearance was found; CCSS = 2.52 [see Lastochkina 7, 15].

 

Our words were distributed as follows:

1. Homonyms: iy I ‘year’ – iy II ‘ice’, Yyzhy I ‘chapter’ – Yyzhy II ‘power', kydezh I ‘partition’ – kydezh II ‘one part in performances', mogyr I ‘body’ – mogyr II ‘side’, nuzh I ‘nettle’ – nuzh II ‘pike’, optem I ‘yolk’ – optem II ‘parchment, pollen’, sola I ‘yal’ – sola II ‘whip’, volume I ‘volume of the book’ – volume II ‘core', check I ‘document’ – check II ‘border’, chyvytan I ‘leech' – chyvytan II ‘tweezers', ball I ‘globe' – ball II ‘horse tail’, shozh I ‘barley, grain crop’ – shozh II ‘eye disease‘, shotlymash I 'account' – shotlymash II ‘reverence’, shur I ‘edge, native place’ – sh?r II ‘milk’, sh?i I ‘neck’ – sh?i II ‘coal, sh?m I ‘heart’ – sh?m II ‘tree bark'.

2. Transitional class: igeche I ‘weather' – igeche II ‘age', yilme I ‘language like the Mari language’ – Yilme II ‘human organ', ketche I ‘sun’ – ketche II ‘day', beat I ‘rhythm’ – beat II ‘sense of proportion', tylze I ‘moon' – tilze II ‘month', shoya I ‘fairy tale‘ – shoya II ’lies', shishpyk I ‘nightingale’ – shishpyk II ‘whistle', shyrpe I ‘matches’ – shyrpe II ‘splinter'.

3. In two cases, the meaning of the second word was not determined by sem I ‘melody’ – sem II the second meaning is not determined (sem II ‘sense, mind, mind’); ikt?rlyk I ‘the same’ – ikt?rlyk II the second meaning is not determined by anyone (ikt?rlyk II mat. ‘equality').

After the survey we conducted, we were convinced that some of our hypotheses coincide with the respondents, and some differ.

So, for example, we assumed that the words yilme, keche, takt, tylze are actually not homonyms, which was confirmed by our survey. As for the words Shoya I ‘fairy tale’ and Shoya II ‘lies, lies, deception’, then we have to disagree and attribute this unit to homonyms, because although there is a semantic connection between these words, but each of them names a different phenomenon. The same can be said about the words shishpyk and shyrpe, which we will classify as homonyms. In the word igeche, the respondents proposed a different interpretation: igeche I ‘weather’ – igeche II ‘day’, so the pair ended up in an intermediate class, but if we consider the word in the dictionary form igeche I ‘weather’ – igeche II ‘age, years’, then we will classify them as homonyms.

We especially note the words ikt?rlyk and this, because the meanings of the other word were not determined: ikt?rlyk I ‘the same’ – ikt?rlyk II mate. equally; sem I ‘melody, motive' – sem II ‘sense, mind, mind’ – sem III 'method, method, means'. Most often, this word iktyrlyk is used in the first meaning of ‘the same’, and the second word is used only by specialists in the field of mathematics, and the word sem is widely known as a motif, melody: Kushtymo sem dance melody; muro sem song motif; marla sem Mari melody. Miklay yocha godsek yeratym semzhym shishkalta. G. Chemekov. Miklay is whistling a tune he has loved since childhood. The composer of the cart was the seventh, and the poet was the fifth. V. Sapaev. The composer composes gentle music, poets write beautiful poems. Bayan sem pochesh tavaltymet vele shuesh. V. Sapaev. I want to dance to the sounds of the accordion [16, pp. 171-172].

So, after the experiment, we can say that this kind of research is effective. Although there are points that need to be corrected: we were not satisfied with the answers to the question "if there is a connection between words, then how does it manifest itself?" Very often, the respondents answered "there is a connection" or "there is no connection" and did not explain how this commonality of values could be determined. It was also not clear whether the semantic connection was being evaluated, rather than stylistic or otherwise. Therefore, as G.S. Shchur argued, "there are different types of dependencies... The relationship between the presented word and its associates is determined not by the presence of semantic commonality, but by the correlation of the corresponding components with reality" [17, p. 145]. Thus, it can be recognized that it is necessary to refer to the speech experience of as many native speakers as possible when distinguishing homonymy from polysemy.

Of course, the nature of associations is influenced by age, geographical conditions, a person's profession, as well as the level of proficiency in the Mari language, but, nevertheless, the opinions of respondents mostly coincide with lexicographic data.

References
1. Avdina, A.I. (2021). Criteria for distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy of prepositions (using the example of lexical primitive prepositions with 1, 2, 3, components of prepositional case constructions “preposition with 1 + noun in R. p.”, “preposition with 2 + noun in V. p.", "preposition with 3 + noun in T. p." Bulletin of SUSU. Series "Linguistics", 3, 48-52. doi:10.14529/ling210308
2. Avdina, A.I. (2022). Questions of classification of homonyms (based on the material of homonym dictionaries). Bulletin of SUSU. Series "Linguistics", 2, 52-58. doi:10.14529/ling220207
3. Kobozeva, I. M. (2000). Linguistic semantics: Textbook. Moscow: Editorial URSS.
4. Wojan, K. (2003). The genesis of homonymy of the Finnish language. Fenno-Ugristica, XXV. Tartu.
5. Leino, P.(1993). Polysemia – kielen moniselitteisyys. Kieli 7. Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos. Helsinki.
6. Malakhovski, L. (1987). Homonyms in English Dictionaries. Studies in Lexicography. Oxford.
7. Lastochkina, E.G. (2022). The issue of distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy in the modern Mari language. Bulletin of the Mari State University, 4, 569-574.
8. Prorokova, V. M. (1959). On the issue of partial semantic homonymy (based on the material of nouns of the modern German language). Scientific reports of higher education. Philological sciences. Moscow: Sov. Science, 2.
9. Golovin, B. N. (1960). Homonyms in the modern Russian literary language. Issues of teaching modern Russian. language Materials of the Gorky Interuniversity Linguistic Conference. Gorky.
10. Seliverstova, O. N. (1974). On the issue of determining meaning and methods of its description. All-Union Scientific Conference on Theoretical Issues of Linguistics (November 11-16, 1974). Abstracts of reports of sectional meetings. Moscow.
11. Pavlov, V. M. (1974). On the psycholinguistic approach to linguistic problems in the field of semantics. All-Union Scientific Conference on Theoretical Issues of Linguistics (November 11-16, 1974). Abstracts of reports of sectional meetings. Moscow.
12. Boldina, O. P. (2006). Experimental and theoretical study of the semantic distance of derivational related words in the Russian language. Barnaul.
13. Tubalova, I. V. (1995). Indications of linguistic consciousness as a source of studying the phenomenon of word motivation. Tomsk.
14. Kachurin, D.V. (2013). The problem of distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy in relation to the practice of compiling explanatory dictionaries: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: specialty 10.02.01 Russian language. Moscow.
15. Lastochkina, E.G. (2021). Homonyms in the modern Mari language: monograph. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Mari State University". Yoshkar-Ola: Mari State. univ.
16. Dictionary of the Mari language. (2001). T. VI: R, S. A. A. Abramov, V. I. Vershinin, A. S. Efremov and others; Ch. ed. I. S. Galkin. Yoshkar-Ola: Mar. book publishing house.
17. Shchur, G.S. (1971). On the types of lexical associations in language. Semantic structure of the word: Psycholinguistic studies. Moscow.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The article presented for consideration "Criteria for distinguishing homonymy from polysemous words (psycholinguistic method)", proposed for publication in the journal "Litera", is undoubtedly relevant, due to the author's appeal to the study of the lexical features of the language of one of the nationalities living in the Russian Federation. In this article, the author analyzes the features of lexical homonyms of the Mari language and their differences from polysemous words. In the work, the author draws on Kachurin's experience in distinguishing polysemy from homonymy in his dissertation "The problem of distinguishing homonymy and polysemy in relation to the practice of compiling explanatory dictionaries" (2013), where the author will try to offer support as a verification method on the testimony of the linguistic consciousness of native speakers using the method of psycholinguistic experiment. The article is innovative, one of the first in Russian linguistics devoted to the study of such issues. The article presents a research methodology, the choice of which is quite adequate to the goals and objectives of the work. The author refers, among other things, to various methods to confirm the hypothesis put forward, namely, the method of questioning, analysis, method of generalization and interpretation of the data obtained. During the survey, 1000 language reactions were obtained (40 respondents were offered 26 pairs of meanings), which is a fairly representative sample. Theoretical fabrications are illustrated with language examples, as well as convincing data obtained during the study. This work was done professionally, in compliance with the basic canons of scientific research. The research was carried out in line with modern scientific approaches, the work consists of an introduction containing the formulation of the problem, the main part, traditionally beginning with a review of theoretical sources and scientific directions, a research and final one, which presents the conclusions obtained by the author. It should be noted that the conclusion requires strengthening, it does not fully reflect the tasks set by the author and does not contain prospects for further research in line with the stated issues. The bibliography of the article contains 17 sources, among which works are presented in both Russian and foreign languages. Unfortunately, the article does not contain references to the fundamental works of Russian researchers, such as monographs, PhD and doctoral dissertations. It should be noted that the article violates the generally accepted alphabetical order of sources according to GOST. The comments made are not significant and do not detract from the overall positive impression of the reviewed work. In general, it should be noted that the article is written in a simple, understandable language for the reader. Typos, grammatical and stylistic errors have not been identified. The work is innovative, representing the author's vision of solving the issue under consideration and may have a logical continuation in further research. The practical significance of the research lies in the possibility of using its results in the teaching of university courses in phraseology and lexicography, as well as courses in interdisciplinary research on the relationship between language and society. The article will undoubtedly be useful to a wide range of people, philologists, undergraduates and graduate students of specialized universities. The article "Criteria for distinguishing homonymy from polysemous words (psycholinguistic method)" can be recommended for publication in a scientific journal.