Abstract:
This paper critiques the treatment of English homographs and homophones in linguistic literatures.
The study is motivated by the fact that the available data are questionable on the subject, thus
calling for re-analysis. Methodologically, the study is a critical analysis of data obtained through
a documentary process in secondary reading. The study employs the Semantic Theory and the
Referential Theory of Meaning as the basis of data analysis. These theories explain lexemes in
terms of how they are articulated and what they refer to. The findings of the analysis reveal that
most of the linguistic literatures offer contestable and confusing definitions of
homographs/homophones. For instance ‘affect’ and ‘effect’, just like’ profit’ and ‘prophet’, are
not homophones though they are regarded as so in some available literature. Also, ‘conduct’ (N)
and ‘conduct’ (V) are regarded as homographs but in reality they are not. Therefore, homophones
are words with the same pronunciation but different spellings and meanings while homographs are
words that are spelt the same but pronounced differently and have different meanings as the case
of 'live' (verb) /lɪv/ and ‘live’ (adjective) /laɪv/
