Explanation
Polysemy occurs when one expression has several related meanings. These meanings do not form an arbitrary list: a spatial sense may extend metaphorically to time, an action to its result, or an object to its function. In English, the body part and opening senses of “mouth” are distinct yet connected through shape and position. Context normally activates an appropriate reading but can keep more than one available at once. Polysemy therefore shows that lexical meaning is neither a rigid core nor unrestricted variability. It is a structured and historically developing network whose internal relations require linguistic and lexicographic justification rather than being inferred from shared form alone.
Movement of thought
1. One expression appears across markedly different contexts of use. 2. Its readings are described separately without immediately postulating unrelated words. 3. Historical, metaphorical, or functional pathways reveal possible connections among them. 4. Contextual tests examine which reading is activated and whether several remain available. 5. The expression returns as a semantic network mediating unity and difference.
Scientific use case
Corpus studies can cluster the collocations and syntactic patterns of readings, while psycholinguistic experiments measure activation and processing cost. Diachronic evidence can test whether proposed semantic bridges have historical support.
Example
“The child opened her mouth” and “the river mouth widened” activate distinguishable but related readings. Context normally selects one, whereas wordplay can deliberately hold both together.
Counterexample
Identical forms without a defensible semantic connection are better analysed as homonyms, as with “bat” the animal and “bat” the implement. Contextual specification of one vague meaning does not necessarily establish polysemy.
Distinction
Distinguish polysemy from homonymy, vagueness, and ambiguity. Homonyms share form without presumed semantic kinship, vagueness leaves boundaries indeterminate, and ambiguity is the broader condition of multiple interpretations.
Effect on thought and perception
Polysemy makes words mobile nodes connecting related domains of experience and opening different routes of interpretation in different contexts.
Resonance
Earlier and current readings sound within one word form; context amplifies one voice without necessarily silencing the larger semantic network.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Polysemy“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-SEM-0002. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-SEM-0002The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Bréal’s account begins with coexistence: acquiring a new meaning need not erase a word’s earlier use. The English translation of 1900 presents this multiplication under the form polysemia, while the French chapter names polysémie. Examples such as root moving between plant life and specialised disciplines make the process visible as diversification rather than simple replacement. The French discussion also explains why a situation can make one interpretation prominent without requiring a speaker to consider every dictionary sense. This is a historical account, not a universal guarantee that ambiguity disappears in context. Bréal’s further distinction of indirect polysemy warns against drawing a direct semantic leap where intermediate derivations are needed. His claims that such multiplicity ranks cultures by advancement are historical valuations and are not adopted by the Atlas. The useful movement for our profiles is to reconstruct the relations among senses without inventing a single unchanged meaning beneath them. The modern English headword polysemy is not dated by the French naming passage or automatically equated with the translator’s spelling. The OCR has gaps, so the French transcription supplies the explicitly identified additional argument rather than an invented reconstruction of missing English pages.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Polysemy is the coexistence of historically related senses; contextual selection does not erase the inventory, and proposed transitions require evidenced intermediate stages.
References for the historical section
- Michel Bréal, Essai de sémantique, Paris: Hachette, 1897, Chapter XIV, pp. 154–162; Wikisource transcription · Chapter XIV: coexistence of meanings; context; indirect polysemy
French transcription read, not fully collated against the scan. French polysémie is not an English first attestation. Bréal’s cultural hierarchy is a historical judgment, not endorsed.
- 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 XIV, readable opening on pp. 139–140; compare French Chapter XIV, pp. 154–162
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.