Polysemy

This is the name given, since Breal, to the use of the same word in two or more distinct meanings. Polysemy is in all probability a semantic universal inherent in the fundamental structure of language. The alternative to it is quite unthinkable: it would mean that we would have to store in our brains a tremendous stock of words, with separate names for any possible subject we might wish to talk about; it would also mean that there would be no metaphors and that language would thus be robbed of much of its expressiveness and flexibility. As a philosopher, W. M. Urban, rightly points out, “this double reference of verbal signs... is a basal “differentia” of semantic meaning. The fact that a sign can intend one thing without ceasing to intend another, that, indeed, the very condition of its being an expressive sign for the second is that it is also a sign for the first, is precisely what makes language an instrument of knowing”.

The frequency of polysemy in different languages is a variable depending on a number of factors. The progress of civilization will make it necessary not only to form new words but to add fresh meanings to old ones; in Breal’s formula, the more senses a term has accumulated, the more diverse aspects of intellectual and social activity it represents.

It would be interesting to explore over a wider field the relation between polysemy and cultural progress. Meanwhile, the frequency of polysemy will also depend on purely linguistic factors. As already noted, languages where derivation and composition are sparingly used will tend to fill gaps in vocabulary by adding new meanings to existing terms. Similarly, polysemy will arise more often in generic words whose meaning varies according to context, than in specific terms whose sense is less subject to variation. The relative frequency of polysemy in various languages may thus provide a further criterion for semantic topology, though once again it is hard to see how this feature could be exactly measured.

There is, however, another aspect of polysemy which can be more precisely quantified: its relation to word-frequency. By systematically comparing the relative frequency of various words with the number of senses in which they are used, the late G. K. Zipf arrived at an interesting conclusion which he termed “the principle of diversity of meanings”. According to Zipf, there is a “direct relationship between the number of different meanings of a word and its relative frequency of occurrences”. He even tried to find a mathematical formula for this relationship: his calculations suggested that different meanings of a world will tend to be equal to the square root, of its relative frequency (with the possible exception of the few dozen most frequent words).

Put in a different way: m = F^½ , where m stands for the number of meanings and F for relative frequency. [...] In fact it has always been clear that some of the commonest words in a language have a great diversity of meanings: in Littre’s dictionary, nearly 40 are listed under aller, nearly 50 under mettre, and some 80 under prendre and faire.

Polysemy is a fertile source of ambiguity in language. In a limited number of cases, two major meanings of the same word are differentiated by formal means; for example [...] flexion (brothers — brethren, hanged — hung [...]); word-order (ambassador extraordinary — extraordinary ambassador […]), spelling (discreet — discrete, draft — draught [...]), etc. In the vast majority of cases, however, the context alone will suffice to exclude all irrelevant senses. When all these safeguards break down, a conflict between two or more incompatible meanings will ensue, and this may lead to the disappearance of some of these meanings, or even to that of the word itself. In the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to say whether there are any general tendencies at work in these conflicts and in the way they are resolved. [...]