MEANING AND POLYSEMY

When analysing the word-meaning we observe 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
p o l y s e m a n t i c , 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.
The word table, e.g., has at least nine meanings in Modern English: 1. a piece of furniture; 2. the persons seated at
a table; 3. sing. the food put on a table, meals; 4. a thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood, etc.; 5. pl. slabs of stone;
6. words cut into them or written on them (the ten tables); 2 7. an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc.; 8. part
of a machine-tool on which the work is put to be operated on; 9. a level area, a plateau.
In polysemantic words, however, we are faced not with the problem of analysis of individual meanings, but
primarily with the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic
structure of one and the same word.

Diachronic Approach
If polysemy is viewed diachronically, it is understood as the growth and development of or, in general, as a
change in the semantic structure of the word.
Polysemy in diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous meaning or meanings and at the
same time acquire one or several new ones. Then the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of
individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulated as follows: did the word always possess
all its meanings or did some of them appear earlier than the others? are the new meanings dependent on the
meanings already existing? and if so what is the nature of this dependence? can we observe any changes in the
arrangement of the meanings? and so on.
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 are derived
from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later than the primary meaning,
The terms s e c o n d a r y and d e r i v e d meaning are to a certain extent synonymous. When we describe
the meaning of the word as “secondary” we imply that it could not have appeared before the primary meaning
was in existence. When we refer to the meaning as “derived” we imply not only that, but also that it is dependent
on the primary meaning and somehow subordinate to it. In the case of the word table, e.g., we may say that the
meaning ‘the food put on the table’ is a secondary meaning as it is derived from the meaning ‘a piece of furniture
(on which meals are laid out)’.
It follows that the main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word.

Synchronic Approach
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.
In connection with the polysemantic word table discussed above we are mainly concerned with the following
problems: are all the nine meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of this word? Is the order in
which the meanings are enumerated (or recorded) in dictionaries purely arbitrary or does it reflect the comparative
value of individual meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic structure of the word table? Intuitively we
feel that the meaning that first occurs to us whenever we hear or see the word table, is ‘an article of furniture’.
This emerges as the basic or the central meaning of the word and all other meanings are minor in comparison. 1
It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts, minor
meanings are observed only in certain contexts, e.g. ‘to keep- the table amused’, ‘table of contents’ and so on.
Thus we can assume that the meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ occupies the central place in the semantic structure
of the word table. As to other meanings of this word we find it hard to grade them in order of their comparative
value. Some may, for example, consider the second and the third meanings (‘the persons seated at the table’ and
‘the food put on the table’) as equally “important”, some may argue that the meaning ‘food put on the table’
should be given priority. As synchronically there is no objective criterion to go by, we may find it difficult in
some cases to single out even the basic meanings since two or more meanings of the word may be felt as equally
“central” in its semantic structure. If we analyse the verb to get, e.g., which of the two meanings ‘to obtain’ (get
a letter, knowledge, some sleep) or ‘to arrive’ (get to London, to get into bed) shall we regard as the basic
meaning of this word?

Polysemy and Context

a full understanding of the semantic structure of any lexical item can be gained only from the study of a variety of
contexts in which the word is used, i.e. from the study of the intralinguistic relations of words in the flow of
speech. This is of greatest importance in connection with the problem of the synchronic approach to polysemy.
In analysing the semantic structure of the polysemantic word table we observed that some meanings are
representative of the word in isolation, i.e. they invariably occur to us when we hear the word or see it written on
paper. Other meanings come to the fore only when the word is used in certain contexts. This is true of all
polysemantic words. The adjective yellow, e.g., when used in isolation is understood to denote a certain colour,
whereas other meanings of this word, e.g. ‘envious’, ‘suspicious’ or ‘sensational’, ‘corrupt’, are perceived only in
certain contexts, e.g. ‘a yellow look’, ‘the yellow press’, etc.
As can be seen from the examples discussed above we understand by the term c o n t e x t the minimal stretch of
speech determining each individual meaning of the word.
The two more or less universally recognised main types of linguistic contexts which serve to determine
individual meanings of words are the lexical context and the grammatical context. These types are differentiated
depending on whether the lexical or the grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.
Lexical Meaning
In lexical contexts of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with the polysemantic word
under consideration. This can be illustrated by analysing different lexical contexts in which polysemantic words
are used. The adjective heavy, e.g., in isolation is understood as meaning ‘of great weight, weighty’ (heavy load,
heavy table, etc.). When combined with the lexical group of words denoting natural phenomena such as wind,
storm, snow, etc., it means ’striking, falling with force, abundant’ as can be seen from the contexts, e.g. heavy
rain, wind, snow, storm, etc. In combination with the words industry, arms, artillery and the like, heavy has
the meaning ‘the larger kind of something’ as in heavy industry, heavy artillery, etc.
The verb take in isolation has primarily the meaning ‘lay hold of with the hands, grasp, seize’, etc. When
combined with the lexical group of words denoting some means of transportation (e.g. to take the tram, the bus,
the train, etc.) it acquires the meaning synonymous with the meaning of the verb go.
The meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as lexically (or phraseologically)
bound meanings which implies that such meanings are to be found only in certain lexical contexts.
Grammatical Context
In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context that serves to
determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb make, e.g. ‘to
force, to enduce’, is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do
something or in other terms this particular meaning occurs only if the verb make is followed by a noun and the
infinitive of some other verb (to make smb. laugh, go, work, etc.). Another meaning of this verb ‘to become’,
‘to turn out to be’ is observed in the contexts of a different structure, i.e. make followed by an adjective and a
noun (to make a good wife, a good teacher, etc.).
Such meanings are sometimes described as grammatically (or structurally) bound meanings. Cases of the type
she will make a good teacher may be referred to as syntactically bound meanings, because the syntactic function
of the verb make in this particular context (a link verb, part of the predicate) is indicative of its meaning ‘to
become, to turn out to be’. A different syntactic function of the verb, e.g. that of the predicate (to make
machines, tables, etc.) excludes the possibility of the meaning ‘t o become, turn out to be’.
It is usual in modern linguistic science to use the terms p a t t e r n or s t r u с t u r e to denote grammatical
contexts. Patterns may be represented in conventional symbols, e.g. to take smth. as take+N. to take to smb. as
take to+N.2 It is argued that difference in the distribution of the word is indicative of the difference in meaning.

Extra-Linguistic Context
Dealing with verbal contexts we consider only linguistic factors: lexical groups of words, syntactic structure of
the context and so on. There are cases, however, when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined not by
these linguistic factors, but by the actual speech situation in which this word is used. The meanings of the noun
ring, e.g. in to give somebody a ring, or of the verb get in I've got it are determined not only by the grammatical
or lexical context, but much more so by the actual speech situation.
The noun ring in such context may possess the meaning ‘a circlet of precious metal’ or ‘a call on the
telephone’; the meaning of the verb to get in this linguistic context may be interpreted as ‘possess’ or
‘understand’ depending on the actual situation in which these words are used. It should be pointed out however
that such cases, though possible, are not actually very numerous. The linguistic context is by far a more potent
factor in determining word-meaning.
It is of interest to note that not only the denotational but also the connotational component of meaning may be
affected by the context. Any word which as a language unit is emotively neutral may in certain contexts acquire
emotive implications. Compare, e.g., fire in to insure one’s property against fire and fire as a call for help. A
stylistically and emotively neutral noun, e.g. wall, acquires tangible emotive implication in Shakespeare’s
Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act V, Scene 1) in the context “O wall, О sweet and lovely wall".1