Polysemy

When analysing the word meaning we can see that words as a rule are not units of a single
meaning. Monosemantic words, i.e. words having only one meaning are comparatively few in
number, these are mainly scientific terms, such as hydrogen, molecule and the like. The bulk of
English words are polysemantic, that is to say possess more than one meaning. The actual
number of meanings of the commonly used words ranges from five to about a hundred. In fact,
the commoner the word the more meanings it has.
As is known, every meaning in language and every difference in meaning is sygnalled
either by the form of the word itself or by context, i.e. syntagmatic relations depending on the
position in the spoken chain. The unity of the two facets of a linguistic sign – its form and its
content in the case of a polysemantic word – is kept in its lexico-grammatical variant. So, we
may say that a lexico-grammatical variant of a polysemantic word is the word used in one of its
meanings in a particular context.
Though no universally accepted criteria for differentiating these variants within one
polysemantic word can so far be offered, the main points can be summed up as follows: lexico-
grammatical variants of a word are its variants characterized by paradigmatic or morphological
peculiarities, different valency, different syntactic functions; very often they belong to different
lexico-grammatical groups of the same part of speech. Thus run in I ran home is intrasitive,
but transitive in I run this office.
All the lexical and lexico-grammatical variants of a word taken together form its
semantic structure or semantic paradigm. Thus, in semantic structure of the word youth three
lexico-grammatical variants may be distinguished: the first is an abstract uncountable noun, as
in the friends of one’ s youth , the second is a countable personal noun ‘a young man’ ( plural
youths ) that can be substituted by the personal he in the singular and they in the plural; the third
is a collective noun ‘young men and women’ having only one form, that of singular, substituted
by the pronoun they. These variants form a structured set because they are expressed by the same
sound complex and are interrelated in meaning as they all contain the semantic component
‘young’ and can be explained by means of one another.
There is no general or complete scheme of types of lexical meaning as elements of a word’s
semantic structure. It depends on different approaches and points of view on this problem.
So as polysemy viewed diachronically can be understood as the growth and
development of the semantic structure of the word it is possible to differentiate primary/main and
secondary/derived meanings. Thus, in the course of a diachronic semantic analysis of the
polysemantic word table we find that of all the meanings it has in Modern English, the primary
meaning is ‘a flat slab of stone or wood’ which is proper to the word in the Old English period
(OE tabule from L tabula ); all other meanings are secondary as they derived from the primary
meaning of the word and appeared later than the primary meaning.
If we are interested mainly in the historical perspective, the meanings will be classified
according to their genetic characteristic and their growing or diminishing role in the language. In
this way the following terms are used: etymological, i.e. the earliest known meaning; archaic, i.e.
the meaning superseded at present by a newer one but still remaining in certain collocations;
obsolete, gone of use; present day - meaning, which is the one most frequent in the present-day
language and the original meaning serving as basis for the derived ones.
Synchronically we understand polysemy as the coexistence of various meanings of the
same word at a certain historical period of the development of the English language. In this case
the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of individual meanings making up the
semantic structure of the word must be investigated along different lines.
According to the way of naming the elements of reality we can differentiate the
direct meaning when it nominates the referent without the help of a context, in isolation, i.e. in
one word sentences; and the figurative meaning when the object is named and at the same time
characterized through its similarity or connection with another object.
 The relative frequency of words’ occurance in speech and their communicative value
makes it possible to distinguish the basic, or the central meaning opposed to minor, or
marginal/peripheric meanings.
Other oppositions representing different relations between the elements of the semantic
structure of a polysemantic word may be as follows: concrete :: abstract, narrow :: extended,
general :: special / particular.
Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word
as individual meanings may differ in their stylistic reference. E.g., the word yellow denoting
colour can hardly be defined as colloquial or slangy or American. But when yellow is used in the
meaning of ‘sensational’ it is both slang and American.
It is very important to mention that one and the same meaning in the frame of a
polysemantic word can at once belong, in accordance with different points, to different groups.
These features of meaning may therefore serve as distinctive features describing each meaning in
its relationship to the others.
Diachronic and synchronic ties are thus closely interconnected as the new meanings
are understood thanks to their motivation by the older meanings.
Hornby’s dictionary, for instance, distinguishes in the word witness four different
variants, which may be described as follows:
Witness 1 ‘evidence, testimony’ – a direct, abstract, primary meaning;
Witness 2 ‘a person who has first-hand knowledge of an event and is able to describe
it’ – a metonymical, concrete, secondary meaning;
Witness 3 ‘a person who gives evidence under oath in a law court’ – a metonymical,
concrete, secondary meaning specialised from witness 2;
Witness4 ‘a person who puts his signature to a document by the side of that of the
chief person who signs it’ – a metonymical, concrete, secondary meaning specialized from
witness 2.
A distinction has to be drawn between the lexical meaning of a word in speech, i.e.
the contextual meaning, and the semantic structure of a word in language. Thus, the semantic
structure of the adjective heavy comprises several variants: ‘weighing a lot’, ‘strong / great’,
‘rough’, ‘full’. When combined with the lexical group of words denoting natural phenomena
such as wind, storm, rain, etc., it means ‘strong, striking, falling with force, abundant’. In
combination with the words industry, arms, artillery and the like heavy has the meaning ‘the
large kind of something’.
As is seen from the above examples the context individualizes the meanings, brings
them out. As a rule, the contextual meaning represents only one of the possible variants of the
word. Sometimes, as, for instance in puns, the ambiguity is intended, the words are purposefully
used so as to emphasize their different meanings.
e.g. Customer: I would like a book, please.
Bookseller: Something light?
Customer: That does not matter. I have my car with me.

As was mentioned above, the semantic structure of a polysemantic word comprises both
primary and secondary, or derived meanings. The appearance of the latter ones can be explained
by the effects of semantic shift or change.
Every semantic shift is based upon some kind of association. The precise nature of the
association usually falls into one of two categories. The first is the extension of a word to
something which somehow resembles the thing originally designated by that word in either its
form or its function. This kind of change is based on metaphor, and is called metaphoric shift.
The second category is reserved for cases of association based not on resemblance but on some
other connection, often in physical space, time, or the relationship of cause and effect. This kind
of change is based on metonymy and is called metonymical shift.
 A metaphor is a transfer of name based on the association of similarity and thus is
actually a hidden comparison. It presents a method of description which likens one thing to
another by referring to it as if it were some other one. A cunning person, for instance, is referred
to as a fox. A woman may be called a peach, a lemon, a cat, a goose, a bitch, a lioness , etc.
Metaphors may be based on very different types of similarity, e.g., the similarity of
shape: head of a cabbage, the teeth of a saw. The similarity may be also supported by position:
foot of a page / of a mountain, or behaviour and function: bookworm, wirepuller. Numerous
cases of metaphoric transfer are based upon the analogy between duration of time and space, e.g.
long distance :: long speech, a short path :: a short time. The transfer of space relations upon
psychological and mental notions may be exemplified by words and expressions concerned with
understanding: to catch ( to grasp ) an idea, to take a hint, to get the hang of, to throw the light
upon.
Another subgroup of metaphors comprises transition of proper names into common
ones: an Adonis, a Cicero, a Don Juan.
Metonymic shift, as was mentioned above, is based on the association of contiguity and
is conditioned by spatial, temporal, causal, symbolic, instrumental and other connections. Spatial
relations are, for instance, present when the name of the place is used for the people occupying
it. The chair may mean ‘the chairman’, the bar ‘ the lawyers’, town may denote its
inhabitants ,the House – the members of the House of Commons or Lords. States and properties
serve as names for objects and people possessing them: youth, age, authorities, forces. There are
also the well-known instances of symbol for the thing symbolized: the crown for ‘monarchy’, the
instrument for the product: hand for ‘handwriting’, receptacle for content: the kettle is boiling,
and some others. Words denoting the material from which an article is made are often used to
denote the particular article: glass, iron, copper, nickel.
Common names may be metonymically derived from proper names as in diesel or
diesel engine – a type of engine invented by a German engineer Rudolf Diesel. Many
international physical and technical units are named after great scientists : amper, ohm, volt,
watt,etc.
A frequent result of semantic change is narrowing of meaning (also called
specialization, or differentiation). This involves the restriction of a word to a subset of the
things it originally denoted, i.e. a word which formerly represented a notion of a broader scope
has come to render a notion of a narrower scope. Thus, the word deer which now refers to a
particular well-known type of animal has narrowed its meaning. As recently as the seventeenth
century the word referred to an animal of any sort.
The opposite result of semantic change is also common. Widening of meaning (also
called generalization) involves the extension of a word to a class of meanings which is in some
sense a superset of its original meanings. In that case the scope of the new notion is wider than
that of the original, whereas the content of the notion is poorer. In most cases generalization is
combined with a higher order of abstraction than the notion expressed by the earlier meaning.
Thus, fly originally meant ‘to move through the air with wings’; now it denotes any kind of
movement in the air or outer space and also very quick movement in any medium; pirate
meant ‘one who robs on the sea’, now it means ‘any one who robs with violence’.
Sometimes semantic change results in neither widening nor narrowing of meaning.
This is the case when one specific meaning ousts another. One example is the word book, which
originally meant ‘scroll’ but is now chiefly used for printed or written works consisting of sheets
of paper bound on one side.
Words often shift their meaning in relatively value-neutral ways, but we also find
radical shifts from positive associations to negative ones and the reverse. An example of
amelioration (shift from negative to positive) is seen in the word nice. Its Latin forbear was
nescius ‘ignorant’ (ne ‘not’+sci ‘know, discern’). An entire chain of shifts shows how it
‘improved its lot’: “ignorant’>’simple’ >’foolishly particular’ >’particular’ >’proper’
>’pleasant’.
 The opposite of amelioration, degeneration (or pejoration) is probably more
common. This happens frequently with words that are used euphemistically (to cover taboo
terms). Degeneration has also applied to notorious, which originally simply meant ‘widely
known’ but is coming to mean ‘widely known for something scandalous’. These evaluative shifts
often occur side by side with other shifts, like narrowing.