8) Polysemy as linguistic phenomenon

The semantic structure of the word doesn’t present an inseparable unity, nor does it stand for one concept, most words convey several concepts and thus possesses the corresponding number of meanings. A word having several meanings is called polysemantic, and the ability of words to have more than 1 meaning is called polysemy. A well-developed polysemy is not a drawback, but a great advantage in a language. Constant development of polysemy enriches the vocabulary. The system of meanings of any polysemantic word develops gradually over the centuries and more and more new meanings are either added to old ones or oust some of them.

So the process of polysemy development involves both the appearance of new meanings and the loss of old ones. The general tendency with English vocabulary is to increase the total number of its meanings and in this way to provide for quantative and qualitive growth of the languages, expressive resources. In the semantic structure of a word there are the main meaning (the centre of the semantic structure of the the word, it conveys the concept in the most general way) and secondary meanings, which can be associated with one another and with special circumstances aspects and instances of the same phenomena. Let’s consider the meanings of the word ‘bar’. The first meaning is ‘any kind of barrier to prevent people from passing’, the second meaning is the profession of barrister, lawyer. The third meaning is ‘a counter or a room where drinks are served’. Meanings number 2 and 3 have no logical links with one another, whereas each separately is easily associated with the 1st meaning. Meaning 2 through the traditional barrier, dividing a court-room into 2 parts, meaning number 3 through the counter , serving as a kind of barrier between the customers of a pub and the barman.

Yet such a centre can not be found in every polysemantic word. Some semantic structures are arranged on a different principal. For example, in the list of meanings of the adjective ‘dull’ it’s hardly possible to find a generalized meaning, conveying and holding together the rest of the semantic structure. The word ‘dull’ means: 1) uninteresting, monotonous, boring (a dull book). 2) slow in understanding, stupid (a dull pupil). 3) not clear or bright (a dull color). 4) not loud or distinct (a dull sound). 5) not sharp (a dull knife). 6) not active (a dull trade) 7) seeing badly (dull eyes) 8) hearing badly (dull ears).

Yet one distinctly feels that there is something that all these meanings have in common and that is the implication of deficiency, be it of color, wits, interest, sharpness, etc. The implication of insufficient quality, of something lacking, can be clearly distinguished in each separate meaning. For example uninteresting means deficient in interest or excitement. So the centre holding together the complex semantic structure of the word is not one of the meanings, but a certain complement, that can be easily singled out within each separate meaning. This brings us to conclusion that the semantic structure of the words is divisible not only at the level of different meanings, but also at a deeper level. Each separate meaning may be represented as sets of semantic components. In the terms of componential analysis the meaning of a word is defined as a set of elements of meanings, which are not part of the vocabulary of the language itself, but rather theoretical elements for describing the semantic relations between the lexical elements of a given language. The scheme of the semantic structure of the word ‘dull’ shows that the semantic structure of a word is not a mere system of meanings because each separate meanings possesses an inner structure of its own.