Homonymy as the Limit of Polysemy

Languages rarely mark the point at which a word’s meanings stop feeling connected. Speakers can often use one form flexibly across related senses, yet historical records show that these connections sometimes erode until the resulting forms behave like independent lexical items. The question this paper addresses is how homonymy emerges as an outcome of polysemy, and whether “homonymy” can be treated as a limit of meaning extension rather than a clean break. The timing matters because current lexical-semantic research increasingly combines synchronic diagnostics with diachronic corpora, making it possible to test where semantic linkage weakens and how classification practices respond.

The study seeks to frame homonymy as the limiting endpoint of polysemy by bringing together semantic theory, historical mechanisms, and empirical diagnostics. It aims to (1) systematize working definitions of polysemy and homonymy and the continuum between them, (2) model diachronic pathways that sever inter-sense links, (3) compare synchronic criteria used to distinguish related senses from separate entries, and (4) assess how semantic-change models, lexicalization and grammaticalization, and morphological structure support the “limit” perspective. To ground these claims, it also pursues strategies for evidence gathering through diachronic and corpus-based data, and it evaluates the implications for lexicography, language teaching, and semantic representations used in natural language processing.

The object of the study is the evolution of lexical meaning across time, with particular attention to cases where one lexical form ends up corresponding to synchronically distinct meanings. The subject of the study is the management of semantic relatedness–how links between senses are maintained, weakened, or reanalyzed–alongside the criteria by which scholars and dictionaries partition lexical items into polysemous structures or homonymous entries.

The discussion begins with conceptual foundations: polysemy and homonymy are treated as outcomes along a continuum of semantic relatedness, rather than as mutually exclusive categories. Drawing on distinctions made in semantics and lexicology, the paper considers how scholars operationalize “same lexeme, multiple senses” versus “separate lexical entries,” and why boundaries can remain gradient even when analysis tries to classify them. This baseline motivates the central claim that homonymy can function as an endpoint of polysemy change when recoverable inter-sense relations become unavailable.

Attention then shifts to diachronic mechanisms that move languages along the continuum. Semantic shift can create divergence, while the loss of semantic links allows senses to drift until speakers no longer perceive derivational or contextual connections. Phonological and morphological reanalysis, together with etymological separation, can reinforce this divergence by changing how forms are structured and interpreted. Semantic change models–broadening and narrowing, metaphor/metonymy, and conventionalization–are interpreted as stages in a gradual weakening of semantic connectivity rather than as a sequence that always ends in a sudden split.

The empirical and analytical core links these theoretical ideas to the practical question of how researchers decide, in synchrony, whether senses still belong to one lexical network. Diagnostic tests such as speaker intuitions, sense relatedness, dictionary grouping, and distributional evidence are assessed for how they can point to different classifications, which supports the paper’s “limit” view instead of a strict binary. The role of lexicalization, grammaticalization, and morphological transparency or opacity is treated as a structural factor that can either preserve perceptible semantic derivation (including effects of compounding and derivation) or make senses behave as independent entries. Case studies and corpus-based approaches are used to show how candidate words can be tracked through diachronic corpora and lexicographic data to evaluate whether semantic connectedness declines over time.

Finally, the paper considers what changes when homonymy is approached as the limiting case of polysemy. Implications follow for lexicographic organization, including how to design sense inventories and labeling policies that reflect decreasing recoverability of semantic links. The analysis also extends to semantic theory, where representations of lexical meaning must accommodate weakening connectivity rather than only two-valued partitions, and to practical applications such as disambiguation in NLP and instructional strategies for learners who rely on perceived derivational relations among senses.