example "voice1 -" sounds uttered in speaking "(sound);" voice2 "-" mode of uttering sounds in speaking "(sound);" voice3 "- the vibration of the vocal cords in sounds uttered ( sound); "voice4" - "the form of the verb that excises the relation of the subject to the action". "Voice1" - "voice2" - "voice3" are not homonymic in their character although they have different meanings because of the reason that they can be substituted by the synonymic word "sound". As far as "voice4" is concerned as homonymic to the devious three meanings because the fourth meaning of the word sound can not be substituted by the word common to the devious three meanings of the word voice (ie the analyzed meaning of the word " ; 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. p>. 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 machi...
