article review (THE CONFLICT OF HOMONYMS: DOES IT EXIST?(https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/69071.pdf))

1.      Identity of the Article

Writer's name                     : Isabel de la Cruz Cabanillas
Article tittle                        : THE CONFLICT OF HOMONYMS: DOES IT EXIST?

Affilation                       : Alcala University

Topic                              : Homonym

number of pages              : 10 pages

Article website address   : https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/69071.pdf

2.      Introduction

We need to be careful in studying the meaning of homonym. This is because, until now there are still differences of opinion about the limitations of vocabulary that can be categorized as homonym. There are two opinions on the meaning of homonym in English: broad opinions and narrow or more specific opinions (restrictive definition).

Homonym if interpreted broadly means words that pronunciation or how to read the same but have different meanings. While in a more narrow homonym means the same word pronunciation or how to read it, the same spelling or composition of the letter, but has a different meaning. In other words, when viewed from restrictive definition, then the vocabulary classified into the homonym must be homograph (same as the writing) and also homophone (same pronunciation) at the same time.

Although there is still a debate about the definition of homonym, but honestly, I personally prefer to use the definition of homonymous restrictions, because this is the dividing element. If we refer to the broad definition of homonyms, then the homonym is no different from homophone, and certainly the question arises, why there should be two conditions if it turns out both are the same, what do you think? And in this article discuss it

3.      Background

         It is a long discussed topic whether the conflict of homonyms can be considered  the cause of different linguistic phenomena. From the very first studies the proponents of the homonymic theory defended that the conflict existed and had several consequences as a result. But, even if these authors claimed that the conflict of homonyms took place under practically any circumstances, according to most experts, the clash will only take place when both words belong to the same part of speech and to the same sphere of thought.

This article deals with the study of the conflict of Homonym. The alleged incorporation of different lexical units in one form may account for a number of linguistic processes, such as the loss of one word, the restriction of distribution or the narrowing of meaning, and the modification of the shape of the elements involved. We will assess where disturbance may occur and conclude that homonym clashes are not responsible for many of the changes traditionally deemed to be derived from it, as it is unlikely that the disambiguation effect will occur from the context.

4.      Methods

The research method written by the writer is using qualitative research method that is Research depart from theory to data, and end at acceptance or rejection of theory used. Here the authors mention about the study of the existence of conflick in homonym that is in the introduction (Gillièron and his studies on French vocabulary (1915 and 1918) & Menner (1936) .The author also describes his data sourced from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). After that the authors draw conclusions on the theory in the closing section of the article and its summary. And I quote the authors conclusion that is
      "Homonymic conflict does not seem to happen inevitably as some scholars claim, So it can not be considered the reason that explains why Take place in the language. The potential for clash will only be real when two Homonyms belong to the same word-class and to the same sphere of thought. These
       Two conditions are very rarely met at the same time, as has been proven from the Analysed corpus. In other cases, there may be some kind of interference, but the conflict will not Be pernicious, unless both requirements are fulfilled. As it is difficult to find a pair of Homonyms (at least homophones) which shows both, there will be no risk of word Displacement. This conclusion can be easily drawn, if we take into account the great Number of homophones that are in the proper use in present-day English (1017 groups in My initial corpus). 

Homonymy, as suggested, must also be studied from another point of view: not Only as the reason for the elimination of lexical units, but also as the cause of other Possible changes in the graphic or phonetic form of the words or as a Reason for distributional restriction. However, no real confusion will arise out of it, as The context will always work as a disambiguating factor. "

5.      Strenghness articles

This article is quite detailed and systematic in the recitation of its material. So easy to understand the reader. Coupled with the existence of the presentation of data from the author to support his rejection of the theory about the existence of the confilck homonym and not responsible for many traditional changes in the assumption derived from it. Because it is not possible because of the effects of disambiguation from the context. And in it there is also a consequence of his existing conflick homonym itself.

6.      weaknes of the article

The study was based on RP and therefore no other variety could be taken into account. There were also criteria related to lexical register. The research was supposed to take into consideration the standard register, so neither slang nor vulgar registers were acceptable and finally criteria adduced by the OED, like obsolete or archaic words or terms which are not homophonous according to the OED. Nevertheless, the most important group of criteria were related to the functioning of the linguistic system, either at the phonographic level , the morphological level  or the lexemic level.

7.      Conclusion

This article is good and can add knowledge about homonyms and its conflicts. This article is also easy to understand so it can be a comparison and referral in a discussion.