INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 152
CREATION AND USE OF HOMONYMOUS ACRONYMS IN ENGLISH
Ibragimova Gulchekhra Madaminjanovna
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor,
Andijan State Institute of Foreign Languages
Andijan, Uzbekistan
In any approach to the language system, it seems dangerous to regard it as something
unchanging and frozen. Language as a system is constantly evolving, and changes in some
elements of the system influence the development of other elements. We have already noted
that word formation is one of the more dynamic subsystems of language due to its more direct
connection with the development of society.
The concept of development is also fully applicable to word-formation models. It cannot
be assumed that any formula for the formation of new words is something given once and for
all. And word-formation models are constantly evolving, and between clearly distinct models
there may be many transitional forms.
In this regard, M.D. Stepanova's assertion that "new words are formed on the basis of
the existing vocabulary according to certain models that are strictly limited in each language"
seems inaccurate [9].
To admit that the number of models in any language is limited means to deny it
development. Models of new word formation, like all other units of language, cannot but
develop. We can only speak of the relative stability of certain models in certain periods of
language development.
Models of acronym formation are new, often in the process of formation. Models of
acronyms, like any formulas for the structure of linguistic units, can only manifest themselves
in specific, real lexical units.
It is worth mentioning one specific group of homophone acronyms, which coincide in
sound form with some ordinary word, but differ from it somewhat in their spelling. Examples
of homophone acronyms include:
BALAST < Astronomy (cf. Ballast);
CAPTIN < Capacitance Pressure Transmitter Indicator (cf. captain);
CLU < Central Logic Unit (cf. clew u clue);
GIPSE < Gravity Independent Photosynthetic Gas Exchanger (cf. Gipsy);
MIRRER < Microwave Identification Railroad Encoding Reflector (cf. mirror);
PLASTEC < Plastics Evaluation Center (cf. plastic);
RESCU < Radio emergency Search Communication Unit (cf. rescue);
SPARC < Sрасе Air Re1ay Communications (cf. Spark).
Homophone acronyms are similar in many ways to homonym acronyms. Here, too, the
intentional coordination of the acronym and correlate composition is quite clearly noted, for
example, the acronym PLASTEC < Plastics Evaluation Center, when formed according to the
"canons" of the abbreviation, should have the form PEC; when analyzing the acronym RESCU
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 153
< Rocket Ejection seat, Upward, an intentional rearrangement of the correlate components is
observed, etc. In many cases, an associative connection between the meaning of the acronym
and the meaning of an ordinary homophone word can be traced:
ANSER < Analytic Services, Incorporated — name of a consulting corporation
providing “quick answers” (cf. answer);
CLUE < Central Logic Unit — name of the central logic unit in an electronic computer
(cf. clew and clue);
INSITE < Integral Sensor Interpretation Techniques — name of the system for
interpreting signals from an integral sensor unit (cf. insight);
RESCU
1
< Radio Emergency Search Communication Unit — name of a radio station
used by emergency rescue services (cf. RESCU
2
);
RESCU
2
< Rocket Ejection Seat Catapult, Upward — name of an ejection seat used to
rescue a pilot (cf. rescue);
STORC < Self-ferrying Транsocean Rotary Wing Crane — name of a large helicopter
crane (cf. stork).
In the latter case, two lines of associative connection are outlined: firstly, the acronym
STORC, like the word stork “stork”, is associated with the word сгane in the correlate, which
means both “crane” and “helicopter-crane, flying crane”; secondly, this helicopter is produced
by the Hiller company, which often gives its helicopters the names of large birds (for example,
Raven “raven”). Homophone acronyms simultaneously combine contradictory elements of
similarity and difference, analogy and differentiation – a complete coincidence with a
commonly used word in terms of sound composition and, at the same time, a divergence in
spelling.
It seems appropriate to compare homonymous acronyms with acronyms formed
according to the models specified in the previous section.
When comparing acronyms such as radar, laser and homonymous acronyms (such as
HERAID, PRISM), the following differences in semantics are revealed: acronyms such as rаdаr,
laser are common nouns, they are used, as a rule, to name technical devices created on the basis
of some new principle; acronyms such as НERALD, PRISM are proper names, these are the
names of individual objects of various kinds (names of organizations, parties, institutions,
specific technical systems, devices, etc.).
This difference in semantics is also reflected in spelling. Acronyms such as radar, 1aser
are usually written in lowercase letters, although sometimes uppercase letters are used;
Homonymous acronyms are almost always written in capital letters, or at least they always
begin with a capital letter (e.g. SPRINT and Sprint, but never sprint).
This distinction also appears when translating and borrowing acronyms into other
languages. Acronyms like radar, laser are borrowed as new root words (cf. Russian "radar",
"laser"), while homonymous acronyms, like proper names in general, are usually transliterated.
For example, EAGLE < E1evation Angle Guidance Landing Equipment is rendered in Russian
as the landing station "игл" with control by the angle of elevation", and RACE < Rapid
Automatic Checkont Equipment - as "high-speed automatic control and verification equipment
"рейс".
A comparison of acronyms like 1aser, radar and homonymous acronyms shows how
subtly the language "feels" the expediency and inexpediency of using homonymy. In the
literature on terminology, it has been repeatedly noted that it is inappropriate to use words of
common vocabulary to create special terms due to the fact that undesirable associations arise
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 154
between the term and the word or phrase homonymous to it. In acronyms like 1aser, radar,
which act as common nouns, the language strives to avoid and quite successfully avoids
homonymy, although these acronyms are constructed according to the typical structure of
ordinary English words. And vice versa, in In acronyms-homonyms, which act as proper names
used to name individual objects, homonymy does not hinder, but rather helps the successful use
of the given name. The function of proper names performed by acronyms-homonyms is also
associated with the widespread multiplicity of correlates among them. The fact that the name
"Ivan" is used in the Russian language for a huge number of men does not hinder the use of this
name in relation to this man.
Nevertheless, the homonymy of acronyms and common words inevitably leads to the
establishment of complex semantic links between them based on associations. "Words are
always associated with some nest of words through their semanteme or morpheme, or even
through their phonemes."
The issue of homonymy of acronyms and common words is a special case of the general
problem of homonymy in modern English; there is a large amount of interesting material on
this issue and it deserves a separate serious analysis.
Here we will give only a few individual examples by way of illustration. The
coincidence of acronyms-homonyms with ordinary words in phonetic and graphic form can
lead, in particular, to various kinds of misunderstandings.
Once, spare parts for F-86 "sabre" aircraft intended for the Brooklyn Air National Guard
˃ BANG were mistakenly transferred to the submarine "Bang". The US Air Force several years
ago named a combat satellite interceptor project Saint. The acronym is associated with saint,
which caused a real storm of indignation on the part of numerous religious groups, and the Air
Force leadership was forced to officially rename the Saint project to Satellite Inspector
(program 62IA) [8]. This gave rise to wits to ask whether religious groups would object if the
project was called Satan (<Satellite Annihilator), that is, “Satan”? Jokingly, abbreviated names
ASININE (literally “donkey”) <Antisatellite Satellite Inspection Intercept Equipment and
SINNER (literally “sinner”) <Satellite Inspection and Navigated Equipment Recovery [1] were
also proposed. Although these sentences are clearly humorous, they are nevertheless of interest,
since, on the one hand, they show the wide possibilities of correlative abbreviation, and, on the
other hand, they emphasize the role of associations in the formation and functioning of
homonymous acronyms.
For a number of years, the official abbreviated title of the US Secretary of Defense was
SOD (< Secretary of Defense). In 1952, Defense Secretary Robert Lovett officially demanded
that this abbreviation be abolished, since it was associated with the truncation of SOD (from
sodomite) with a very unpleasant meaning.
In conclusion, we note that the creation and use of homonymous acronyms is not
exclusive to the English language. They are also found in other languages, although they are
much less common, and their use is associated with certain restrictions. For example, in
Russian, homonymous acronyms are used more often in special styles of speech - satire, humor.
cf., for example, KUKISH - courses for cutting and sewing, BOX - combat window of satire,
SHIK brigade - headquarters and kitchen, etc. Homonymous acronyms were especially widely
used for expressive purposes in the Russian language in the 1920s. One of the creative
organizations called itself ХЛАМ (artists, literature, actors, musicians). The obvious
association allowed Mayakovsky to characterize the poetry of one of the former members of
this organization as follows: "He just can't sweep this "trash" out of his poems." At present,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 07,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 155
homonymous acronyms without a clearly expressed expressive coloring are also widespread:
Akkord < automated controlled learning class with branched dosing; Cactus < class of active
assimilation, etc.
In modern French rocket and space terminology, under the obvious influence of the
English language, the following acronyms have emerged to designate new artificial Earth
satellites:
ROSEAU (literally "reed") < Radio Observations ра Satellite Excentrique d'-
Automatisme Unique" "radio observations using an eccentric satellite with unique automatic
equipment" - the name of a research satellite.
CONDOR (literally "condor") Connaissance et Detection des Оrаgеs "reconnaissance
and detection of hurricanes" - the name of a meteorological satellite.
SAFRAN (literally "saffron") Satellite Français d'Afrique Noire "French satellite for
Black Africa" - the name of a communications satellite.
In the first two examples, the influence of the English language is obvious: the object
(satellite) is designated by the name of the action.
The spread of acronyms-homonyms should not be viewed as a kind of “tribute to
fashion” (although, apparently, this circumstance also has a certain influence), but as the
development of a new convenient way of forming new words that act primarily as proper names.
LITERATURE
:
1. Missiles and Rockets”, July 3, 1961. – P. 49.
2. Claude
E.
Shannon.
The
redundancy
English.
Chrome-
extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/http://medientheorie.com/doc/
shannon
_redundancy.pdf. – P. 123.
3. Marckwardt. A.N. American English. – New York, 1958. – P. 93.
4. Partridge E.A. Dictionare of Abreviations. London, 1949, Preface).
5. Pyles, Т. The Origins and Development of the English Language. New York, 1964. – P.
289.
6. Russel, I.W. Among New Words. “American Speech”, vol. XXI, April 1946. – Pp. 138-
139.
7. Wells, R. Acronymy. In: For Roman Jackobson. Compiled by M. Halle and o. The Hague,
1956. – P. 662.
8. Вандриес, Ж. Язык. – М., 1937. – C. 172.
9. Степанова, МЛ. Методы синхронного анализа лексики. – М., 1968. - C. 160.
