erson', voice 2 as 'mode of uttering sounds in speaking or singing', voice 3 as 'the vibration of the vocal chords in sounds uttered '. So far all the definitions contain one and the same kernel element rendering the invariant common basis of their meaning. It is, however, impossible to use the same kernel element for the meaning dissent in the fourth example. The corresponding definition is: "Voice - that forms of the verb that excises the relation of the subject to the action". This failure to satisfy the same explanation formula sets the fourth meaning apart. It may then be considered a homonym to the polysemantic word embracing the first three variants.procedure described may remain helpful when the items considered belong to different parts of speech; the verb voice may mean, for example, 'to utter a sound by the aid of the vocal chords'. This brings us to the problem of patterned homonymy, ie of the invariant lexical meaning dissent in homonyms that have developed from one common source and belong to various parts of speech.a lexicographer justified in placing the verb to voice with the above meaning into the same entry with the first three variants of the noun? The same question arises with respect to after or before - disposition, conjunction and adverb.elder generation of English linguists thought it quite possible for one and the same word to function as different parts of speech. Such pairs as act n - act v, back n - back v, drive n - drive v, the above mentioned after and before and the like, were all treated as one word functioning as different parts of speech. Later on this point of view was severely criticized. It was argued that one and the same word could not belong to different parts of speech simultaneously because this would contradict the definition of the word as a system of forms. This viewpoint is not faultless either: if one follows it consistently one should regard as separate words all cases when words are countable nouns in one meaning and uncountable in another, when verbs can be used transitively and intransitively, etc. In this case hair 'all the hair that grows on a person's head will be one word, an uncountable noun; whereas a single thread of hair will be denoted by another word (hair2) which, being countable, and thus different in paradigm, cannot be considered the same word. It would be tedious to enumerate all the absurdities that will result from choosing this path. A dictionary arranged on these lines would require very much space in printing and could occasion much wasted time in use. The conclusion therefore is that efficiency in lexicographic work is secured by a rigorous application of etymological criteria combined with formalized procedures of establishing a lexical invariant suggested by synchronic linguistic methods.to those concerned with teaching of English as a foreign language, they are also keenly interested in patterned homonymy. The most frequentl...
