Cover not available
Part of
English Historical Linguistics: Change in structure and meaning
Edited by Bettelou Los, Claire Cowie, Patrick Honeybone and Graeme Trousdale
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 358] 2022
► pp. 61–90

Chapter 3
Ambiguity resolution and the evolution of homophones in English

| Tsurumi University
ORCID logo | Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Based on a quantitative study of the evolution of homophones in English, we present an argument about why homophones occur. Zipf’s law, which states that word frequency decreases as a power law of its rank, can be seen as the outcome of form-meaning associations, adopted in order to comply with listener and speaker needs. This implies that one form can correspond to many meanings (i.e., polysemy and homophony). We argue that homophony is a desirable feature in communication systems, is stable, and increases through time. When a large number of homophones emerge, however, an impetus to avoid homophones comes into play. We suggest that the evolution of diatones is a case of the avoidance of homophony. Related to this, we examine the neural substrates of bisyllabic noun-verb homophones, using near-infrared spectroscopy. We show that noun and verb categories are represented in different neural substrates in the left hemisphere, and relate this to our historical data, explaining why the actuation of diatone-formation was connected with production in frequent homophones in the 16th century, but was connected with perception in infrequent words after the 17th century.
Keywords: linguistic evolution, homophones, ambiguity, Zipf’s law, word frequency, diatones, neural substrates
Article outline
  • 1.Introductory remarks
  • 2.The evolution of homophones
    • 2.1Why do homophones exist?
    • 2.2Word frequencies and homophones in Present-Day English
    • 2.3Homophones in Old English and Middle English
      • 2.3.1The stability of OE homophones
      • 2.3.2Stability of ME homophones
      • 2.3.3Word frequency of OE and ME homophones
  • 3.Evolution of diatones
    • 3.1Why do diatones evolve?
    • 3.2Word frequency and diatones
  • 4.Neural bases of the evolution of homophones and diatones
    • 4.1Neural substrates of bisyllabic noun-verb homophones in English
    • 4.2Neural substrates of diatones
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 2 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.358.03ogu
References (46)
Sources
CELEX Lexical Database of English (version 2.5). 1995. Centre for Lexical Information, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. (Baayen et al. 1995).Google Scholar
LDC Japanese Lexicon. 1997. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
The Brooklyn-Geneva-Amsterdam-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English. 2000. (Pintzuk et al. 2000).Google Scholar
The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English. 2000. (Kroch & Taylor 2000).Google Scholar
References
Antilla, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics (2nd revised edn.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Léon Gulikers. 1995. The CELEX lexical database [webcelex]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Binder, Jeffrey R., Rutvik H. Desai, William W. Graves & Lisa L. Conant. 2009. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex 19. 2767–2796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alastair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Carroll, John B., Peter Davies & Barry Richman. 1971. American heritage word frequency book. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Crepaldi, Davide, Manuela Berlingeri, Eraldo Paulesu & Claudio Luzzatti. 2011. A place for nouns and a place for verbs? A critical review of neurocognitive data on grammatical-class effects. Brain & Language 116. 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedorenko, Evelina G., Steven Thomas Piantadosi & Edward A. Gibson. 2012. The interaction of syntactic and lexical information sources in language processing: The case of the noun-verb ambiguity. Journal of Cognitive Science 13. 249–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferre i Cancho, Ramon & Richard V. Solé. 2003. Least effort and the origins of scaling in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100. 788–791. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fudge, Erik. 1984. English word-stress. London: Allen Unwin.Google Scholar
Fukui, Yuichi, Yusaku Ajichi & Eiji Okada. 2003. Monte Carlo prediction of nearinfrared light propagation in realistic adult and neonatal head models. Applied Optics 42. 2881–2887. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John (ed.). 1985. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hotta, Ryuichi. 2013. The diatonic stress shift in Modern English. Studies in Modern English 29. 1–20.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1954. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, Part 1. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (2nd edn.). [URL]
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Volume 2: 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levins, Peter. 1570. Manipulus Vocabulorum (Early English Text Society, UK edition, 1973).Google Scholar
Miller, George A. 1981. Language and speech. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Moore, Samuel. 1967. Historical outlines of English sounds and inflections. Revised by Albert H. Marckwardt. Ann Arbor: George Wahr.Google Scholar
Mulcaster, Richard. 1582. The First Part of the Elementarie which entreateth chefelie of the right writing of our English tung (Scolar Press; Facsimile of 1582 edition, 1970).Google Scholar
Nakao, Toshio. 1978. The prosodic phonology of Late Middle English. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin.Google Scholar
Ogura, Mieko. Forthcoming. Language evolution as a complex adaptive system: A multidisciplinary approach to the history of English. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ogura, Mieko & William S-Y. Wang. 2006. Ambiguity and language evolution: Evidence of homophones and syllable number of words. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 42. 3–30.Google Scholar
. 2012a. The global organization of the English lexicon and its evolution. In Hans Sauer & Gaby Waxenberger (eds.), English historical linguistics 2008, Volume 2: Words, texts and genres, 65–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Ambiguity resolution and evolution of word order. In Thomas C. Scott-Phillips, Monica Tamariz, Erica A. Cartmill & James R. Hurford (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of 9th International Conference, 274–281. Singapore: World Scientific. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Evolution of tense and aspect. In Erica A. Cartmill, Sean Roberts, Heidi Lyn & Hannah Cornish (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 10th international conference, 213–220. Singapore: World Scientific. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Evolution of homophones and syntactic categories noun and verb. In Christine Cuskley, Molly Flaherty, Hannah Little, Luke McCrohon, Andrea Ravignani & Tessa Verhoef (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 12th international conference, 355–363. Torun: Nicolaus Copernicus University.Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60. 320–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Gradience in an abrupt change: Stress shift in English disyllabic noun-verb pairs. In Simone E. Pfenninger et al. (eds.), Contact, variation, and change in the history of English, 83–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven T. Harry Tily & Edward Gibson. 2012. The Communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122. 280–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan, Eric Haeberli, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Frank Beths. 2000. The Brooklyn-Geneva-Amsterdam-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English. [URL]
Sereno, Joan A. & Allard Jongman. 1995. Acoustic correlates of grammatical class. Language and Speech 38(1). 57–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Kevin & Alfonso Caramazza. 2003. The representation of grammatical categories in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 201–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Donald. 1975. Noun-verb stress alternation: An example of the lexical diffusion of sound change in English. Linguistics 159. 43–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1980. The ecology of the English monosyllable. In Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.), Studies in English linguistics: For Randolph Quirk, 277–293. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tsigka, Styliani, Christos Papadelis, Christoph Braun & Gabliele Miceli. 2014. Distinguishable neural correlates of verbs and nouns: A MEG study on homonyms. Neuropsychologia 54. 87–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vonk, Jet M. J., Roel Jonkers & Loraine K. Obler. 2015. Semantic subcategories of nouns and verbs: A neurolinguistic review on healthy adults and patients with Alzheimer’s disease. In Corine Astésano & Mélanie Jucla (eds.), Neuropsycholinguistic perspectives on language cognition: Essays in honour of Jean-Luc Nespoulous, 61–74. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 2011. Ambiguity in language. Korean Journal of Chinese Language and Literature 1. 3–20.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Eiju, Yuichi Yamashita, Atsushi Maki, Yoshitoshi Ito & Hideaki Koizumi. 1996. Non-invasive functional mapping with multi-channel near infra-red spectroscopic topography in humans. Neuroscience Letters 205. 41–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, Yuichi, Atsushi Maki & Hideaki Koizumi. 1996. Near-infrared topographic measurement system: Imaging of absorbers localized in scattering medium. Review of Scientific Instruments 67. 730–732. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zempleni, Monika-Zita, Remco Renken, John C. J. Hoeks, Johannes M. Hoogduin & Laurie A. Stowe. 2007. Semantic ambiguity processing in sentence context: Evidence from event-related fMRI. NeuroImage 34. 1270–1279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, Kingsley. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar