Explanation
Monosemy is the property or analytical hypothesis that an expression has a single conventional core meaning. Apparent readings are then derived from context, world knowledge, construction, or general inferential processes rather than stored as multiple senses. Such an account can make the lexicon more economical, but it must not define real differences away. The crucial question is whether a sufficiently determinate shared meaning explains every use and whether the observed interpretations remain systematically derivable. The conceptual movement therefore searches for invariance, constructs explicit derivations, and adopts monosemy only when counterexamples, contrasts, and speaker judgements do not require separate conventional meanings.
Movement of thought
1. Different uses of an expression are collected without prematurely splitting its meaning. 2. A maximally specific shared semantic core is formulated as a working hypothesis. 3. Context, construction, and world knowledge should derive individual readings systematically. 4. Ambiguity diagnostics and incompatible inferences test the proposed semantic unity. 5. A single conventional meaning is retained only when its explanatory power is sufficient.
Scientific use case
Lexical semantics, lexicography, and computational linguistics compare monosemous and polysemous models using corpus distributions, compositional behaviour, and speaker judgements. Economy must be balanced against empirical discrimination.
Example
A verb occurs in spatial and abstract contexts. The analysis tests whether both uses follow from one relational core plus contextual enrichment instead of immediately positing two lexical entries.
Counterexample
An extremely abstract paraphrase with little predictive content does not establish monosemy. If readings show different grammatical patterns, incompatible inferences, or independent historical developments, genuine polysemy may be required.
Distinction
Distinguish monosemy from polysemy, homonymy, and mere narrowness of meaning. It is often a hypothesis about conventional encoding, not a claim that an expression permits only one concrete interpretation.
Effect on thought and perception
Monosemous analyses highlight productive contextual work and structures shared across varying readings. They prevent unnecessary lexical fragmentation but carry a risk of excessive abstraction.
Resonance
One meaning remains audible as a fundamental tone through changing contexts. Different readings appear as the environment's responses to the same semantic impulse.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Monosemy“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-133-017. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-133-017The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Bréal’s treatment of restricted meaning shows why a word can be interpreted quite narrowly in a particular exchange even when its wider history contains several applications. That offers a useful contrast for monosemy, but it is not evidence that contextual clarity makes the word globally single-meaning. The Atlas needs to separate a lexical claim about the number of senses from a claim about what a listener selects here and now. Otherwise every successful disambiguation would misleadingly count as monosemy. The historical discussion supports that distinction indirectly, through its account of specialised and contextual use. It does not establish the exact English technical noun or a modern criterion for counting senses. Those remain necessary additions, especially where technical conventions aim at one meaning within a defined domain.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Monosemy is a claim about an expression’s conventional semantic system, not merely about its unambiguous interpretation in one context.
References for the historical section
- Michel Bréal, Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning, translated by Mrs. Henry Cust, preface by J. P. Postgate, 1900; Internet Archive item semanticsstudie01postgoog, OCR witness · Chapter X: situationally restricted interpretation; contrast with the work’s account of multiple meanings
Selected passage, not a complete genealogy or an English first-attestation claim. Original Atlas applications are editorial interpretations, not reported experiments. Selected English OCR passages read, not collated against page images. The OCR title page says New York: Henry Holt, MDCCCC; the item catalogue says London: Heinemann. This discrepancy is retained for facsimile review. OCR omits or corrupts parts of the text; only readable passages are used. Postgate’s preface is not attributed to Bréal. No English first-use claim from this translation.