Homonimai, homoformos ir homografai tekstynų lingvistikos požiūriu

Erika RIMKUTĖ Vytautas the Great University HOMONIMAI, HOMOFORMOS IR HOMOGRAFAI THE LINGUISTICAL POSITION OF TEXTS 1. Introduction The Centre for Computational Linguistics of Vytautas Magnus University has accumulated and continues to complete the textbook of contemporary Lithuanian language, which consists of more than 100 million words (address: http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/Tekstynas). A morphologically annotated textbook of 1 million words is also being compiled and managed. The computer program Lemuoklis (Zinkevičius 2000: 246) created by V. Zinkevičius is used for this purpose. It is able to present the heading in the form of the written word, the so-called lemma, as well as to indicate morphological indications, for example, the form laužo is lemmatized as the noun laužas or as the verb /aužyti, described as the singular origin of a masculine noun or the third person of a direct present tense verb. 47% of all words or word forms are morphologically ambiguous. Morphologically, polysemantic words are those words or word forms for which Lemuoklis automatically determines two or more lemas or for which it provides two or more possible morphological indications, e.g.: nama — noun and adverb (nama stogas — eju namo); possible —adjective and participle (possible object); galės —noun and verb (/d i mės kūdikis —he will win the competition) and so on. Automatically lemmated and morphologically marked texts are also reviewed by a linguist, who removes ambiguous cases. Such polymorphic forms have been analyzed in more detail. This is a new field of research, and therefore it is necessary to choose and define terms. These forms are referred to in linguistics as grammatical- /morphological homonyms, homoforms, homographs, partial homonyms. This article aims to expose the inconsistencies in the use of existing terms, to justify the different use of the term homoform and the new term morphological polysemanticism. 33 2. Concepts of homonymy Until now, Lithuanian linguists have not paid much attention to morphological polysemanticism — only lexical homonyms have been studied in detail. Therefore, problems arise as to how to identify morphological polymorphism and its individual types. 2.1. Homoforms and morphological homonyms. In linguistics, morphological/grammatical homonyms are described as phonetically identical forms of the same word with different grammatical meanings, e.g. ranka (see noun) and ranka (see noun verb) (Jakaitienė 1980: 42; Co6ojieBa 1980: 78). Some linguists do not distinguish grammatical homonyms from homoforms. These may be different forms of the same word (see the examples mentioned above) or different sounding forms of the same word, e.g.: sakai (dkt. noun) and sakai (vksm. present I. vns. II person) (LK I 1995: 23; Barauskaitė 1979: 43-44; Drotvinas 1986: 125). E Katamba calls the overlapping forms of the same or different parts of the language syncretism (Katamba 1994: 25). E. Jakaitienė does not identify homoforms with morphological homonyms (Jakaitienė 1980: 42). Homoforms are defined as separate, randomly coinciding forms of completely different words in their phonetic structure in common language, for example: harškis (dkt. vns. nominative) and kiškis (sngr. vksm. lip. nuos. vns. II person). In other words, a word is a set of phonemes, not a set of sounds. For example: a) verbs, which phonetically match only the communicative and the forms made from It: gesti, gėsta, geso „fire, light vanish, fade” and gesti, genda, gedo „to be unsuitable®; b) nouns and adjectives or participants (differing in their singular and plural forms): common “belongs to all” and common “friend, friend” (Jakaitienė 1980: 43). In LK I such cases are classified as partial homonyms, although only verbs are mentioned there (LK I 1995: 24). LK I discusses phonetically coinciding verbs in homoformy (LK I 1995: 23), but the question arises as to what should be considered as coinciding verbs that differ in pronunciation, e.g.: new store opening —two naia shops opened. V. Drotvinas calls the equally and differently pronounced forms of the same parts of speech regular homo34 "Jormomis (Drotvinas 1986: 93)". Other linguists do not mention the different pronunciations of the same word. 2.2. Homoforms and partial homonyms. E. Jakaitienė defines partial homonyms as words in which all forms of one word coincide with part of the forms of another word. Most often, one word of such a pair of homonyms belongs to the variable parts of the language, and the other — to the invariant ones, e.g.: greta — noun and adverb, unfortunately — noun and emoticon (Jakaitienė 1980: 43). From the definition of partial homonyms given in LK I (LK I 1995: 24) it can be concluded that this type of homonymy coincides with the homoforms mentioned earlier by E. Jakaitienė (Jakaitienė 1980: 43), e.g.: rausti, rausia, rausė „digging, knisting“ and rausti, rausta, raudo „making red®. The same words are pronounced and written differently (KTZ 1990: 79). Therefore, homoformy does not include several overlapping verbs of the same word. This definition of homoforms makes the distinction between homoforms and partial homonyms unclear, since the latter are described as “homonyms in which not all the morpheme are completely the same or which belong to different parts of the language” (KTZ 1990: 80). This type of homonymy is illustrated by the example next to —noun and adverb, and by the example given next to homoforms vara —adverb and the noun varas įnagininkas (KTŽ 1990: 79-80), so there is no difference between partial homonyms and homoforms. 2.3. Homoforms and homographs. Most of the uncertainties for the author of this article arose when analyzing the forms of the same or different words, which differ in prosodic elements, i.e., the place of accent, suffix or number of vowels — how to call them: homographs or homoforms? Homographs are usually defined as different words or their forms, written the same but pronounced differently (differing either in conjugation, or in the place of the accent), e.g. dušti "cool, darytis nekarštam" and aūsti "light, brėkšti" (Jakaitienė 1980: 44; LK I 1995: 23; KTŽ 1990: 23-24; Palmer 1981: 101; Drotvinas 1986: 91-92; Barauskaitė 1979: 44). Thus, it would seem that ambiguous cases differing in prosodic elements should be called homographs, but LK I writes that “there are also homoforms, which are written the same, but differ in accent” (LK I 35 1995: 23). The following examples are given: „balrų ir baltų (white and white), dovanos ir dovanos (gift and to give), mano ir mano“ (LK 1 1995: 23). V. Drotvinas mentions examples of homoforms such as supančios (vksm. būs. I. III asm.) and sūpančios (dlv. mot. gim. vns. kilm. or dgs. vard.) (Drotvinas 1986: 91). These examples also differ in the place of the consonant, although they are classified as homomorphs. The notion of homoforms differing in accent appears logical, because when analyzing morphologically annotated texts, a number of forms that differ in pronunciation have been observed (about 20% of homoforms differ in prosodic elements) (see Rimkutė 2002: 91-92). However, the question arises as to what criteria can be used to distinguish homoforms from homographs, if phonetic identity is not required for homoforms. Perhaps only forms of the same word that differ in pronunciation should be regarded as homoforms, e.g. mama (substantive) and mama (adjective), gali (verb galėti present tense I person II person) and gali (verb galėti present tense I person III person), and as homographs — words of different meanings, e.g. kartus „tail“ and kartus „bitterness“ or kartus „horse neck“. a place where bitterness grows”. However, the examples given by LK I and V. Drotvin are not different forms of the same word differing in prosodic elements, but words of different meanings. Moreover, it is not always clear whether they are forms of the same or different words. Thus, it would seem that different words or word forms that differ in prosodic elements can be considered homoforms. Another criterion explaining the notion of homoformy is that homographs are often described as words with different meanings, but this is not emphasized by all linguists, for example, LKE writes that homographs are words or word forms written in the same way (LKE 1999: 248). Often, several verbs of the same noun coincide. It goes without saying that these are not words with different meanings. It is unclear which of the two forms is the most common. O. S. Achmanova calls those cases where the same word forms are pronounced differently homographic word forms and emphasizes that they are not homographs (AxvManosa 1986: 436). Drotvinas suggests that homoforms, homographs and homophones are called commoninetic word forms (Drotvinas 1986: 91). Such a term seems acceptable, so those word forms that differ in prosodic elements could be called homographic or homonymous word forms, but instead of the long term, a shorter one is chosen — just homoforms. It has already been mentioned that the analysis is partly determined by the object of the study — the morphologically annotated text in an automatic way, so the phonetic differences of homoforms are not examined too deeply, as this requires more detailed studies. These criteria led to a slight change in the use of the term homoform. In order to avoid confusion, when analyzing morphologically polymorphic forms in morphologically annotated texts, it is observed that different or the same parts of the language are assigned to different morphological forms, not coinciding with the place of accent, suffix or number of vowels, can be both homoforms and homographs, e.g.: karaliaus sostas—karaliaiis ilgai, namo stogas —einu namo,sėdi séniai —tai atsitiko seniai. Thus, some homoforms — coinciding noun vowels — may be 36 homographs if seen from the perspective of pronunciation, and homographs — homoforms or different vowel forms of the same words when examined morphologically. The simpler option is chosen — all morphologically polymorphic forms, regardless of whether they differ in prosodic elements or not, are considered homoforms, and the term homographs is not used at all. 2.4. Other cases of homonymy. In some linguistic works, the extent of homoformy is quite clear: homoforms consist only of the forms of words themselves, or of different parts of the language. Based on the examples given by V. Urbutis and LKE, it is possible to conclude that some overlapping forms of words belonging only to different parts of the language are considered to be homoforms, e.g.: grūdo —noun grūdas vns. kilm. and the grain —the verb to be crushed. map. 1. III person (Urbutis 1956: 4; LKE 1999: 247-248), therefore it is unclear whether homoforms can be considered coinciding forms of words of the same language part, for example, tapo (other basic forms differ: tapyti, tapė and tapti, tampa). The definition of homographs given by the LCE is unclear as to how homographs differ from homonyms and homoforms, because it says: "homographs ~ elements of language (words or their forms) written equally in the usual spelling. Lithuanian homographs are usually also homonyms”, e.g.: kasa „pynė” —kasa „place of monetary transactions” (in other ne ar ty 37 in the understanding of the biologists, pancreas is a true/absolute homonym; this example could be considered a homograph if the noun kasa and the verb kasti esam coincided. I. III asm. forms). The noun bell vns. kilm. form of the verb and the verb varpyti esam. The I. III person forms of the word bell are also considered to be homographs (in other linguistic works — homoforms). The LKE also writes that differently pronounced homographs are also not a rarity (e.g.: dust —aūšti, pérejimas —perėjimas, giria —giria) (LKE 1999: 248). There is still a lack of discussion in linguistic works of the cases when two or more unchangeable parts of speech overlap, e.g.: as, and, only, until; whether they are also to be classified as homoforms, or should be considered as some other case of polysemanticism (the author of this article classifies such cases as homoforms of unchangeable parts of speech (see 3. Morphological polysemanticism). 3. Morphological ambiguity From what has been stated, it is clear that the terminology presented in linguistic works differs. In order to avoid confusion as to what is being analyzed — homoforms, homographs or partial homonyms — the more general term morphological ambiguity has been chosen. It is a phenomenon comprising: 1) changing and unchanging forms; 2) word forms of different and the same parts of speech; 3) word forms or words that differ in certain forms, prosodic elements and completely coincide. The term polysemantic is used not only to analyze homoforms that differ in morphological features, but also to refer to operative (e.g., ištvirkėlis — cvilėlis: the same operative formant gives different meanings), lexical semantic (e.g., the true homonym ring), syntactic semantic (e.g., in the combination teacher's invitation Due to different syntactic connections it is not clear whether the teacher invites or he himself is invited), textual (e.g., he sat here all evening: in order to understand the deiktics he and here, a broader context is needed) polysemantic. It is necessary to point out that the analysis of morphological polysemanticism is quite specific — written forms of words without accents are analyzed. Lemuoklis does not have any knowledge about the semantics of the analyzed words, their frequency of use, so the words are analyzed regardless of context. For example, the form of kokio can be morphologically described as the noun kokis, meaning "quality", and the pronoun koks. In the morphologically annotated text three types of homoforms are distinguished: 1) variable, 2) variable and unchangeable, and 3) homoforms of only unchangeable parts of language. The first type of homoformy is illustrated by the following examples: kultivoval psu b i d ą —developed a good b ii d ą (concordant form way, which can be a noun way or a way vns. gal.); 38 importantsecret-- givenoutsecret (the noun secret is the same in singular noun and plural pronoun). In the second case, for example, the noun form, the adverb and the preposition coincide: atėjo su manopriešais-priešaismačiau mišką —stoji priešais mane. Among the homomorphs of invariant parts of speech is the word and —it can be a conjunction, a particle and an adverb. As can be seen from the examples given, homoforms are also those words or word forms that are pronounced differently. And morphological polymorphism, as a phenomenon, includes all these types of homomorphs. Thus, the morphologically annotated text automatically analyzes homoforms, 0 non-homographs or homonyms. Because the written forms of words are analyzed, the focus is on morphological, 0 not phonetic or semantic differences. Due to the nature of the analysis, the concept of homoformy has been changed, so they partly include both homographs and partial homonyms. The author of the article believes that it is better to choose one clear term, rather than several interrelated terms of homonymy. It is expected that this concept of homoforms will be adopted in the long term when analyzing morphologically polymorphic forms. 4. Conclusions The article examines how linguists use terms related to homonymy and how morphologically polymorphic forms revealed by automatic morphological analysis should be named. 39 1) homomorphic and morphological/grammatical homonyms are considered to be the same or different parts of the homonym; 2) homomorphic and morphological/grammatical homonyms are considered to be the same or different parts of the homonym; 2) from the existing definitions of homonymy it is not clear whether a homoform consists of: (a) word forms of the same or different parts of the language; (b) phonetically identical or different forms of the same word; 3) some linguists refer to the same forms as homoforms, others — as partial homonyms; 4) in one place it is stated that homoforms are pronounced equally, in another — that they may differ in pronunciation; 5) the criteria for distinguishing homoforms, homonyms and homographs are not precisely defined; 6) it is not clear what overlaps of official language parts are considered. 2. Due to the terminology inuniformity and the rather specific nature of the analysis, the term morphological ambiguity was chosen, which is perceived as a phenomenon encompassing: 1) variable and unchangeable forms; 2) word forms of different and the same parts of speech; 3) word forms or words that differ in certain forms, prosodic elements and completely coincide. 3. More than 47% of the forms in the automated morphologically annotated textbook are polymorphic. The term "comoforms" has been chosen to describe these specific forms. There are 1) variable, 2) variable and non-variable, 3) homoforms of purely non-variable parts of the language, which may differ in prosodic elements, i.e. place of accent, suffix or number of vowels. The term homoforms also includes some forms that are traditionally considered to be homographs or partial homonyms. Axmanosa O. C. 1986: Caoeapb omonumos pycckoeo a3bika, Mocksa. 1979: Basics of Lexicology (Lexical semantics), Vilnius. Drotvinas V. 1986: Basic concepts of lexicology, Vilnius. Jakaitienė E. 1980: Lithuanian Language Lexicology, Vilnius. 40 Katamba F 1994: English Words, London and New Your. KTŽ 1990: K. Gavenis, S. Keinys. Dictionary of the English Language, Vol. LK 11995: Lithuanian Language 1, Vilnius. LKE 1999: Encyclopedia of Lithuanian Language, Vilnius. Palmer EF. R. I981: Semantics, Cambridge. Rimkutė E. 2002: Homoforms in contemporary Lithuanian texts. —Lituanistica 2 (50), 86-101. Cooboacesall A 1980: Closoobpazosame.ivnas no.aucesmus disgrace, u Mock- - Three. Urbutis V. 1956: Methods of homonym formation in the Lithuanian language lexicon (Autoreferat of the PhD dissertation), Vilnius, Zinkevičius V. 2000: Morphologic- — al analysis. — Works ir Days 24, 246-273. HOMONYMS, HOMOFORMS AND HOMOGRAPHS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF CORPUS LINGUISTICS Summary The article deals with a small part of the corpus of the Lithuanian language, which was automatically tagged. The corpus with morphological tags has shown high level degree of ambiguity a of the language: about 47 percent of word forms are ambiguous. In the Lithuanian linguistics traditionally the greatest attention has been devoted to the lexical homonyms. Other levels of ambiguity have not been analysed. For this reason it was necessary to define the main terms of the morphological ambiguity and to solve the problematic issues of the relevant terminology. It was difficult to define what are the main differences between homographs, homonyms and homoforms. Traditionally in linguistics it is affirmed that homoforms must coincide phonetically, while homographs arc pronounced differently. This article shows that some homoforms can differ by the place of accent, the quality of vowels or mtonation. Homoforms were analysed instead of homographs or homonyms, because the main attention was devoted to morphological but not phonetic or semantic differences. Erika RIMKUTE Gauta 2003-03-18 Vytautas University of the Great Donelaičio g. 58, Kaunas Email: [email protected] 41