Problems in the Diachronic Differentiation of Near-Homophones
Problems in the Diachronic Differentiation of Near-Homophones
复制标题
近同音词的历时区分问题
作者：
Y. Malkiel
福尔斯的论文分为较短的总论部分和较长的专题部分。第一部分是关于一个言语社区可能寻求的各种解决方案，在两个同音异义词或近同音异义词的威胁性冲突的情况下，仔细区分，在几乎每一个类别，严格的词汇和词汇语法同音异义词。四个特征模式被建立：（a）说话者，经过一些犹豫，最终接受两个合作伙伴，因为上下文消歧或因为有争议的词属于不同的社会方言（或寄存器）-或者因为一个是常见的，另一个相对罕见，例如技术。(b)较强的词将较弱的词驱逐出去，完全消除它或将它逼到角落里，有时只是暂时的;在这种情况下，强度可以通过纯粹的频率来衡量，或者通过结构整合的平滑度来衡量，或者通过现成的可用性与完全缺乏合适的替代品来衡量。(c)这两个词合并，产生第三个词，通常是扩展的语义arTibit。(d)通过复杂的、不那么明显的类比过程，这些伙伴在意义上，尤其是在形式上逐渐分化--进一步的二分法是（a）一个伙伴或（，B）两个伙伴经历这种两极化的变化。在整个第一部分中，例子都是从欧洲语言的混合袋中引用的。第2部分涉及一个特别引人注目的分化的两个近同音异义词，即两个OSP的实例的微观研究。介词，faza 'towards'和（f）ata 'until'，其词源很久以前就建立了（Lat. Facie AD“with one's face to”vs. Arabic hattd“until”）。到目前为止，还没有一个令人满意的解决方案，提出了某些特质，他们的发展在中世纪后期阶段，当法扎采取的形状fazia >（h）acia，和fata几乎同时成为fasta，（h）asta。这里回顾了旧的、相互排斥的解释，并予以拒绝。新的解释建议在一种情况下，例如f（i）uza“信心”（从FiDUCIA）让步的基础上，fuzia，huzia;在其他情况下，假设合并与最后残余的USQUE AD南部的比利牛斯山脉（一个假设支持神父jusque，OFr。enjosque etc.）-可能看起来，乍一看，牵强附会和令人信服的，前者是因为固有的语义差距，后者鉴于某些缺失的链接（虽然OSP。fascas 'almost' lends powerful support）.这样的怀疑可以通过这样的假设来克服，即插入/j/和/s/背后的实际驱动力分别不是类比，而是对近同音异义词的分化的强大冲动，这很容易利用像f（i）uza > fuzia或hatta x USQUE这样的模型作为借口。许多次要问题（Ptg的增长）。吃了，阿拉格。enta等）也进行了历时分析。
This paper falls into a shorter general part and a longer special part. Part 1 is concerned with the various solutions which a speech community may seek in the event of a threatening collision of two homonyms or near-homonyms; a careful distinction is drawn, in almost every category, between strictly lexical and lexico-grammatical homophony. Four characteristic patterns are established: (a) The speakers, after some wavering, in the end accept both partners, because of contextual disambiguation or because the words at issue pertain to different social dialects (or registers)-or else because one is common, and the other relatively rare, e.g. technical. (b) The stronger word dislodges the weaker word, eliminating it altogether or driving it into a corner, sometimes only temporarily; strength, in this context, is measurable by sheer frequency, or by smoothness of structural integration, or by ready availability vs. total absence of suitable substitute items. (c) The two words merge, producing a third word, usually of extended semantic arTibit. (d) The partners are gradually differentiated in meaning and, above all, in form, through complicated and less than obvious analogical processes-with the further dichotomy of either (a) a single partner or (,B) both partners undergoing such polarizing changes. Throughout Part 1, examples are adduced from a mixed bag of European languages. Part 2 involves a microscopic study of one particularly arresting instance of differentiation of two near-homonyms, namely two OSp. prepositions, faza 'toward' and (f)ata 'until', whose etymologies were established long ago (Lat. FACIE AD 'with one's face to' vs. Arabic hattd 'until'). No satisfactory solution has so far been proposed for certain idiosyncrasies of their development at the late-medieval stage, when faza assumed the shape fazia > (h)acia, and fata almost simultaneously became fasta, (h)asta. Older, mutually exclusive explanations are reviewed here and rejected. The new interpretations proposed-in one case, the example of f(i)uza 'confidence' (from FiDUCIA) yielding ground to fuzia, huzia; in the other, an assumed merger with the last remnants of USQUE AD to the south of the Pyrenees (a hypothesis buttressed by Fr. jusque, OFr. enjosque etc.)-may seem, at first glance, far-fetched and unconvincing, the former because of the inherent semantic gap, the latter in view of certain missing links (though OSp. fascas 'almost' lends powerful support). Such skepticism may be overcome by the supposition that the actual driving force behind the intercalation of /j/ and /s/, respectively, was not analogy, but the powerful urge toward differentiation of near-homonyms, which was apt to avail itself of models like f(i)uza > fuzia or hatta x USQUE as mere pretexts. Many side-issues (the growth of Ptg. ate, Arag. enta etc.) are also subjected to diachronic analysis.