Homonyms in Modern English

Курсовой проект - Иностранные языки

Другие курсовые по предмету Иностранные языки

Скачать Бесплатно!
Для того чтобы скачать эту работу.
1. Пожалуйста введите слова с картинки:

2. И нажмите на эту кнопку.
закрыть



rd "sound").

. We also use the semantic method of distinction of these occurrences. The meaning of homonyms always mutually excepts each other and the meaning of polysemantic words airs formed by one sensible structure keeping the semantic intimacy: one of the meanings assumes, while the other is non-irresistible limit.semantic criterion implies that the difference between polysemy and homonymy is actually reduced to the differentiation between related and unrelated meanings. This semantic criterion does not seen to be reliable, firstly, because various meanings of same word and the meanings of two or more different words may be equally apdivhended by speaker.

. There is a fourth method of distinction of polysemy and homonymy. It is morphological method. It means that polysemy and homonymy are characterized by the various word -building. So some words which have a few meanings the new word is formed with the same suffix., the following conclusion can also be drawn: the problem of distinction of homonymy and polysemy in all the languages compared has not been investigated thoroughly yet and there is still much opportunities to discover new fields of approaches and this problem is still waiting its salvation.

 

CONCLUSION

phonetic homonym linguistic phenomena

Having analyzed the problem of homonyms in Modern English we could do the following conclusions: a) The problem of homonyms in Modern English is very actual nowadays. b) There are several problematic questions in the field of homonymy the major of which is the problem of distinguishing of homonyms and polysemantic words. d) The problem of homonymy is still waiting for its detail investigation.also must be said that whereas distinction between polysemy homonymy is relevant and important for lexicography it is not relevant for the practice of either human or machine translation. The reason for this is that different variants of a polysemantic word are not less conditioned by context then lexical homonyms. In both cases the identification of the necessary meaning is based on the corresponding distribution that can signal it and must be present in the memory either of the pupil or the machine. The distinction between patterned and non-patterned homonymy, greatly underrated until now, is of far greater importance. In non-patterned homonymy every unit is to be learned separately both from the lexical and grammatical points of view. In patterned homonymy when one knows the lexical meaning of a given word in one part of speech, one can accurately predict the meaning when the same sound complex occurs in some other part of speech, provided, of coarse, that there is sufficient context to guide one. More generally, whereas prior studies have treated homonyms equivalently in analysis and experimentation, our understanding of these words and how they are processed could be enriched by studying homonym subclasses that might differ on various dimensions such as lexical organization, language evolution, and language play.said about the perspectives of the work we hope that this work will find its worthy way of applying at schools, lyceums and colleges of high education by both teachers and students of English. Let us also hope that this term paper will take its worthy place among the lexicological works dedicated to the types of shortening.

Bibliography

 

[1] Ginzburg R.S. et al. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979 pp.72-82

[2] O. Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395-412

[3].Smirnitsky A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977 pp.57-59,89-90

[4] Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp.17-31

[5] Canon G. Historical Changes and English Wordformation: New Vocabulary items. N.Y., 1986. p.284

[6] Howard Ph. New words for Old. Lnd., 1980. p.311

[7] Halliday M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotics. Social Interdivtation of Language and Meaning. Lnd., 1979.p.53,112

[8] Maurer D.W. , High F.C. New Words - Where do they come from and where do they go. American Speech., 1982.p.171

[9] Canon G. Historical Changes and English Word formation: New Vocabulary items. N.Y., 1986. p.284

[10] Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981pp.23

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. Arnold I.V. The English Word M. High School 1986 pp. 143-149

. O. Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395-412

. Jespersen ,Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford, 1982 pp.246-249

. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford 1964., pp.147, 167, 171-172

.V.D. Arakin English Russian Dictionary M.Russky Yazyk 1978 pp. 23-24, 117-119, 133-134

.Smirnitsky A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977 pp.57-59,89-90

. Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp.17-31

. Howard Ph. New words for Old. Lnd., 1980. p.311

. Bloomsbury Dictionary of New Words. M. 1996 стр.276-278

. Hornby The Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English. Lnd. 1974 стр.92-93, 111

. Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981pp.23-25

. Internet:

. Internet:

14. Internet:

s