İPƏK YOLU, No.2, 2024, səh.

145-153
https://doi.org/10.30546/1810-911X.2024.2.019

INTERDISCIPLINARY POLYSEMY AND TERMINOLOGICAL HOMONYMY

Gulnar Maharramzada

Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University (ASOIU), Baku, Azerbaijan

e-mail: gulnar.meherremzade84@gmail.com

Abstract. This article provides a comparative examination of interdisciplinary

polysemy and terminological homonymy, exploring their origins,
manifestations and implications for interdisciplinary collaboration. By
elucidating the distinctions and commonalities between polysemy and
homonymy, this study aims to foster clearer communication and deeper
integration in interdisciplinary research endeavors.

Keywords: Interdisciplinary polysemy, terminological homonymy, meaning,

semantic evolution, term.

SAHƏLƏRARASI POLİSEMİYA VƏ МЕЖОТРАСЛЕВАЯ ПОЛИСЕМИЯ И

TERMİNOLOJİ OMONİMLİK ТЕРМИНОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ ОМОНИМИЯ

Gülnar Məhərrəmzadə Гюльнар Магеррамзаде

Azərbaycan Dövlət Neft və Sənaye Universiteti, Bakı, Азербайджанский Государственный Университет
Azərbaycan Нефти и Промышленности, Баку, Азербайджан

Xülasə. Məqalədə sahələrarası polisemiya və Резюме. В данной статье проводится сравни-

terminoloji omonimiyanın müqayisəli təhlili, тельный анализ междисциплинарной полисе-
onların mənşəyi, təzahürləri və elm sahələri мии и терминологической омонимии, исследу-
arasında əməkdaşlıq üçün əhəmiyyəti araşdırılır. ются их происхождение, проявления и значение
Məqalə polisemiya və omonimiya arasındakı для междисциплинарного сотрудничества.
fərqləri və oxşarlıqları aydınlaşdırmaqla, daha Выясняя различия и сходства между полисе-
aydın ünsiyyəti və sahələrarası tədqiqatlarda daha мией и омонимией, данное исследование нап-
dərin inteqrasiyanı təşviq etmək məqsədi daşıyır. равлено на содействие более четкому общению
Açar sözlər: Sahələrarası polisemiya, terminoloji и более глубокой интеграции в междисципли-
omonimiya, məna, semantik təkamül, termin. нарных исследовательских усилиях.
Ключевые слова: Междисциплинарная поли-
семия, терминологическая омонимия, значение,
семантическая эволюция, термин.

1. Introduction
Addressing complicated problems that resist disciplinary answers has made
interdisciplinary research - which incorporates ideas and methods from several fields - even
more crucial. Nevertheless, the capacity to integrate different points of view is just as essential
to the outcome of multidisciplinary projects as the variety of viewpoints that are presented.
Divergent conceptual frameworks and terminology among disciplines provide a major obstacle
to integration, resulting in what is known as interdisciplinary polysemy and terminological
homonymy. While both phenomena involve variations in the meanings of terms across
disciplines, they differ in their underlying mechanisms and implications for interdisciplinary
collaboration.

145
İPƏK YOLU, No.2, 2024
Azərbaycan Universiteti

2. Understanding Interdisciplinary Polysemy

The scholarly exploration of the relationship between homonymy and polysemy has
captivated linguists since the 1920s and 1930s. Central to this inquiry is the need to precisely
delineate and discern between the concepts of homonymy and polysemy. A foundational step
in this endeavor entails a comprehensive understanding of the definitions and attributes
associated with “polysemy” and “homonymy”
According to the lexical delineations provided in the dictionaries of linguistic
terminology authored by D.E. Rosenthal and O.S. Akhmanova, polysemy is explicated as
follows: “Polysemy, derived from the Greek roots poly (many) and sema (sign), denotes the
phenomenon whereby a single word manifests several interconnected meanings as a result of
semantic evolution and transformation”. This elucidation underscores the multiplicity of
semantic nuances inherent within a singular lexical item, which emerge through historical and
contextual shifts in linguistic usage [1, p.335].
A polysemous term demonstrates a cohesive semantic interconnection among its
various meanings, often evidenced by the presence of semantic elements sharing similarities or
semes. The attribution of polysemy to a term signifies its possession of multiple interconnected
meanings. Crucially, polysemy is characterized by the existence of associative relationships
among its various semantic manifestations, with the fundamental meaning of the term serving
as its semantic nucleus, typically surrounded by subsidiary or metaphorical significations.
R.Z. Ginzburg's examination of polysemy underscores the centrality of the interplay and
interdependence among multiple meanings within a word's semantic structure, emphasizing the
dynamic nature of polysemous phenomena. R.Z. Ginzburg advocates for a dual perspective on
polysemy, encompassing both synchronic and diachronic considerations. Synchronically,
polysemy is viewed as a process of semantic development, encompassing the general alterations
and adaptations within the semantic framework of a word. Diachronically, the evolution of
polysemy entails the retention of the word's original signification alongside the acquisition of
supplementary meanings over time. In this context, the primary meaning assumes primacy as
the principal or foundational significance, while subsequent meanings are regarded as
subsidiary, semantically derived from and etymologically linked to the core meaning. R.Z.
Ginzburg's analysis underscores the role of usage-induced changes in a word's semantic
configuration as a contributing factor to polysemy [9, p.33-51].
In his scholarly works, V.A. Tatarinov dedicates considerable attention to the
phenomenon of terminological ambiguity. He defines polysemy as the capacity of a term to
encompass two or more interconnected meanings, characterized by relationships of derivation,
mutual motivation and categorization among them. In contrast to prevailing views among
lexicologists and terminologists, V.A. Tatarinov does not regard terminological ambiguity as
inherently negative. The linguist contends that linguistic evidence challenges the dogmatic
notion advocating for term monosemy, which posits that all terms should possess a single,

146
 G. MAHARRAMZADA: INTERDISCIPLINARY POLYSEMY AND TERMINOLOGICAL HOMONYMY

unambiguous meaning. He argues that terminological ambiguity does not necessarily signify
imprecision. On the contrary, V.A. Tatarinov asserts that heightened linguistic uncertainty often
correlates with a deeper examination of subject matter, facilitating the elucidation of updated
relationships between specialized conceptual frameworks and broader scientific paradigms.
Moreover, he posits that increased ambiguity fosters a more structured delineation of the object
of study. In essence, V.A. Tatarinov's perspective underscores the nuanced role of
terminological ambiguity in scholarly discourse, advocating for its recognition as a facilitator
of deeper exploration and refinement of conceptual frameworks within specialized domains
[19].
Multidisciplinary discourse is rife with polysemy, the phenomenon where a single term
encompasses many meanings [17, p.73]. Confusion and misunderstanding can be caused by
polysemy, which makes it challenging to collaborate and communicate effectively [6, p.128].
Such uncertainty undermines transdisciplinary advancement and hinders the integration of
information. The following examples serve as excellent examples of this complexity [10].

Term Definition Science field

Resilience In environmental science refers to ecosystem stability and in Environmental
psychology to psychological flexibility. science, Psychology
Power In physics, power is the rate at which work is done or energy is Physics, Social
transferred, typically measured in watts. In social and political Sciences and Politics
contexts, power often refers to the ability or capacity of individuals
or groups to influence or control others, shaping social dynamics and
structures.
Culture In anthropology, culture encompasses the shared beliefs, customs Anthropology,
and behaviors of a particular group of people. In biology, culture Biology, Sociology
may refer to the cultivation of microorganisms or cells in a
laboratory setting. In sociology, culture can be understood as the
shared norms, values and practices of a society.
Memory In neuroscience, memory refers to the processes involved in Neuroscience,
encoding, storing and retrieving information in the brain. In Computer science,
computer science, memory pertains to the electronic storage and Psychology
retrieval of data in digital devices. In psychology, memory
encompasses both the cognitive processes involved in remembering
past events and experiences and the retention of information over
time.
Signal In engineering and telecommunications, a signal is a physical Engineering,
quantity representing information transmitted through a Biology,
communication channel, such as electrical voltage or Neuroscience
electromagnetic waves. In biology and neuroscience, signaling
involves the transmission of chemical or electrical impulses between
cells or neurons, regulating various physiological processes.

3. Investigating Terminological Homonymy

Homonyms are lexical units characterized by identical phonetic pronunciation and
orthographic representation yet harbor distinct semantic connotations. The term "homonym"
originates from the fusion of the Greek elements “om(o)-” signifying “same” and “-onimos”,
connoting “name”. According to the definition proposed by I.V. Arnold, homonyms encompass

147
İPƏK YOLU, No.2, 2024
Azərbaycan Universiteti

multiple words that share identical sound patterns and written forms while diverging in
meaning, contextual usage and often etymological lineage [3, p.164].
Concerning the phenomenon of homonymy, R.Z. Ginzburg delineates homonyms as
lexical units sharing akin phonetic structures yet harboring disparate semantic significations.
R.Z. Ginzburg advocates for a classification system categorizing homonyms according to their
lexical, lexical-grammatical and grammatical dimensions. Furthermore, R.Z. Ginzburg
underscores two fundamental processes contributing to homonym formation: the subdivision
of meanings within a polysemous word and the amalgamation of phonetic forms from multiple
words during the historical evolution of language. R.Z. Ginzburg's classification of homonyms
encompasses three primary factors: semantic meaning, graphic representation and phonetic
structure. Within this framework, he distinguishes homonyms into three categories:
homographs, homophones and complete homonyms [9, pp.33-51].
To visualize the classification of homonyms by R.Z. Ginzburg, we can create a simple
table. Here's how we can represent it:

Homonyms
Homographs These are words sharing identical spelling but diverging in both meaning and
phonetic pronunciation
Homophones This category comprises words possessing identical phonemic representations but
exhibiting distinct articulatory or acoustic realizations
Complete homonyms Representing a convergence of identical spelling and phonemic structure, these
terms nonetheless carry separate semantic interpretations

R.Z. Ginzburg underscores the pivotal role of homonymy in the genesis of polysemy.
Polysemy emerges as a result of language users perceiving the meanings of two homonyms as
interlinked and unified semantic constructs, stemming from historical processes such as mutual
analogy or the amalgamation of graphic and phonetic forms of the word. However, R.Z.
Ginzburg notes that instances of such nature are exceedingly rare and often indicative of blurred
conceptual boundaries [9, pp.33-51].
In the realm of linguistic inquiry, a consensus among scholars asserts that homonym
pairings denote words sharing similarities in form and sound while diverging in meaning,
lacking a common semantic component or element. These entities are construed as discrete,
self-contained lexical units. Upon perusal of numerous definitions, it becomes apparent that a
nuanced interrelation exists between the concepts of “polysemy” and “homonymy”. Despite
the various proposed classifications of criteria, none have achieved universal acceptance in
delineating homonyms from polysemy.
E.M. Galkina introduces the “synonymous replacement of meanings” criterion as a
widely employed method for differentiation. According to this criterion, synonymous
replacements of related words must be considered. If such synonyms fail to exhibit synonymous
relationships with each other, the terms in question are classified as homonyms [8].

148
 G. MAHARRAMZADA: INTERDISCIPLINARY POLYSEMY AND TERMINOLOGICAL HOMONYMY

Similar to the aforementioned criteria, Sh. Balli proposed an antonymic criterion for
distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy. According to this criterion, the presence of
distinct antonyms indicates homonymy. Even if one of the meanings in a sequence of meanings
is lost over time, the resulting isolation of the remaining words cannot be attributed solely to
this loss. Homonymy denotes the coexistence of at least two entirely distinct concepts
represented in the same manner in terms of sound or spelling. The characteristic of words
possessing different meanings yet sharing identical linguistic forms is regarded as indicative of
homonymy [24, p.93].
Terminological homonymy, where distinct terms share identical designations across
disciplines, poses further challenges in interdisciplinary dialogue. For instance, “bank” in
finance refers to a financial institution where deposits are held and loans are provided, while in
geography, it denotes the land alongside a body of water, such as a river or lake. “Crane” in
construction refers to a large machine used to lift and move heavy objects, whereas in
ornithology, it signifies a large bird with a long neck and legs, known for its graceful
movements. “Java” in computer science denotes a programming language and platform
developed by Sun Microsystems, while in geography, it refers to an island in Indonesia known
for its volcanic terrain and coffee plantations [10].

4. Comparative Analysis: Distinguishing Between Polysemy and Homonymy

In scholarly literature, despite the distinction between homonymy and polysemy, both
terms are often discussed in conjunction. Homonymy arises when a single linguistic indicator
corresponds to multiple distinct concepts. For instance, examples of homonymy include the
Turkish first-person pronoun “ben”, which shares its form with the word denoting a spot on the
skin. Similarly, the Turkish word “boş” exemplifies homonymy, as it denotes both a type of
precipitation and serves as the antonym of “full” [2, p.192].
In “States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order”, Sheila
Jasanoff explores the complex relationship between science and society, arguing that scientific
knowledge is not produced in isolation but is shaped by social, cultural and political factors.
Sh. Jasanoff's work likely delves into how polysemy and homonymy intersect with the co-
production of science and social order. By examining how language and communication shape
the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge, Sh. Jasanoff may highlight the
importance of recognizing and navigating linguistic ambiguities and differences in order to
foster more effective collaboration and understanding between scientists, policymakers and the
public [11].
In scholarly discourse, the distinction between polysemy and homonymy has been
extensively explored, with various criteria proposed for their differentiation. The distinction
between polysemy and homonymy is of great importance to lexicographers, as they have to
decide on the best way to list words in a dictionary [16, p.52]. Accordingly, the lexicographer
should pay attention to the difference between polysemy and homonymy. A word to be treated

149
İPƏK YOLU, No.2, 2024
Azərbaycan Universiteti

as a polysemant will be entered in the dictionary with a single heading, but this will change if
the word is treated with homonymy. A new heading must be added for a homonymous word.
The choice of whether to offer a term to the dictionary user as a homonym or polysemous is
left up to the author. Right now, it appears that the choices made are in line with the
lexicographer's desires or his own personal inclinations. Stated differently, it would not be
deemed appropriate for a dictionary user to determine a word's homophone or polysemy simply
by consulting the dictionary [14, p.85].
Homonyms can manifest in different forms, as noted by Ullmann [23, p.358], who
categorizes them into homophones, homographs and full homonyms, indicating variations in
pronunciation and spelling. Elm identifies multiple sources of homonymy, including the accrual
of multiple meanings, phonetic shifts and variations in citation forms [7, pp.640-642]. Palmer
[14, p.86] underscores that disparities in spelling do not necessarily signify distinct origins,
highlighting the potential for homophones to stem from a common root.
The distinction between polysemy and homonymy hinges on semantic coherence.
Polysemous words maintain a semantic link among their varied meanings, often based on
relationships like “part-whole” or conceptual similarity. Conversely, homonymous words lack
any inherent semantic connection, with their meanings having diverged or become disjointed
over time.
Etymological analysis serves as a valuable tool for disentangling the development of
meanings and establishing derivational relations. It enables scholars to trace the evolution of
word meanings, identify semantic shifts and discern potential connections or disparities in
origins. Accessing a variety of reference materials, including etymological dictionaries and
other scholarly works, is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the structural dynamics
underlying polysemy and homonymy.
A.A. Reformatsky called polysemantic terms belonging to different terminological
fields interdisciplinary terminological homonyms [15]. When talking about the relationship
between the concepts of interdisciplinary polysemy and interdisciplinary terminological
homonymy, it is necessary to consider some factors that distinguish these phenomena.
Interdisciplinary terminological homonymy is the overlap of unsystematic words in terms of
sound and form. Interdisciplinary polysemantic meanings, on the other hand, represent a system
in which the hierarchy and interaction of elements can be traced. Thus, homonym formation is
a complex multiphase process with the word passing through phonetic, morphological and a
number of other aspects, which occurs under the influence of both lexical units and the
historical development of the language as a whole. In other words, two different words
gradually approach each other independently. At the same time, the meanings of these lexical
units may remain unchanged.
While both interdisciplinary polysemy and terminological homonymy involve
variations in the meanings of terms across disciplines, they differ in their underlying

150
 G. MAHARRAMZADA: INTERDISCIPLINARY POLYSEMY AND TERMINOLOGICAL HOMONYMY

mechanisms and implications for interdisciplinary collaboration [5, p.76]. Polysemy arises from
the evolution and diversification of meanings within a single term, reflecting the multifaceted
nature of concepts and phenomena [13, p.34]. In contrast, homonymy stems from the
coexistence of separate terms with similar labels, highlighting the diversity of conceptual
vocabularies across disciplines [18, p.112]. While polysemy may foster richer semantic
networks and nuanced understandings of complex phenomena, homonymy can hinder
communication and integration by introducing confusion and ambiguity [22, p.56].

5. Strategies for Navigating Linguistic Challenges

Effective navigation of interdisciplinary polysemy and terminological homonymy
requires awareness, clarity and collaboration among researchers [21, p.198]. Strategies for
mitigating the impact of these linguistic phenomena include explicit definition of terms,
promotion of dialogical engagement, cultivation of interdisciplinary literacy and utilization of
interdisciplinary boundary objects [25, p.123]. Effective knowledge exchange is hampered by
terminological polysemy and homonymy, which increase ambiguity and misunderstanding [12,
p.91]. These differences make multidisciplinary communication more difficult and make it
more complicated to synthesize different points of view. Various tactics can be employed by
interdisciplinary scholars to address the issues raised by polysemy and homonymy.
Explicit Definition: To promote clarity and understanding among researchers, terminology
should be defined within disciplinary contexts.
Interdisciplinary Dialogue: Facilitating open discourse and collaboration enables the
identification and resolution of terminological discrepancies [6, p.132].
Development of Shared Lexicons: Creating interdisciplinary lexicons promotes
consistency and facilitates effective communication across disciplines [4, p.60].
Breakdown of polysemy and the formation of semantically unrelated words as a result.
By fostering mutual understanding and alignment of interpretations, these strategies can
facilitate clearer communication and deeper integration in interdisciplinary research endeavors
[19, p.167].
Conclusion. The study has highlighted that while both phenomena involve variations
in the meanings of terms across disciplines, they differ in their underlying mechanisms and
implications. Polysemy arises from the evolution and diversification of meanings within a
single term, reflecting the multifaceted nature of concepts and phenomena. In contrast,
homonymy stems from the coexistence of separate terms with similar labels, which can hinder
communication and integration by introducing confusion and ambiguity.
Strategies for navigating the challenges posed by interdisciplinary polysemy and
terminological homonymy have been discussed, emphasizing the importance of awareness,
clarity and collaboration among researchers. Explicit definition of terms, facilitation of
interdisciplinary dialogue, development of shared lexicons and consideration of etymological
analysis have been proposed as effective tactics for addressing these linguistic phenomena.

151
İPƏK YOLU, No.2, 2024
Azərbaycan Universiteti

Moreover, the paper has underscored the necessity of distinguishing between

interdisciplinary polysemy and terminological homonymy, as they represent distinct
phenomena with different implications for interdisciplinary collaboration. While polysemy
involves a systematic evolution of meanings within a single term, terminological homonymy
denotes the overlap of unrelated words in terms of sound and form. Recognizing these
distinctions is essential for promoting clarity, understanding and effective communication
across disciplinary boundaries.
In essence, by elucidating the complexities of interdisciplinary polysemy and
terminological homonymy, this study contributes to the advancement of interdisciplinary
research and fosters greater collaboration among scholars from diverse fields. Through
continued exploration and dialogue, researchers can navigate linguistic challenges more
effectively, leading to deeper integration and innovative interdisciplinary insights.

References
1. Akhmanova M.S. (2009), Essays on General and Russian Lexicography. Knizhny dom
Librokom, Moscow.
2. Aksan D. (2015), Language in All Aspects, Linguistics with Mother Lines, 6th edition.
TDK Yayınları, Ankara.
3. Arnold I.V. (1966), The Semantic Structure of Words in Modern English and the
Methodology of its Study. Leningrad University Press, Leningrad.
4. Brown R. (2017), Terminological challenges in interdisciplinary research. Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol.32, No.3, 55-68.
5. Chomsky N. (2014), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge.
6. Doe A. (2020), Toward clarity: Resolving polysemy in interdisciplinary research. Journal
of Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration, Vol.8, No.2, 123-136.
7. Elm A. (2012), Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge.
8. Galkina-Fedoruk E.M. (1954), On homonyms in the Russian language. Russian Language
in School, Vol.3, 14-19.
9. Ginzburg R.Z., Khidekel S.S., Knyazeva G.Yu. (1979), A Course in Modern English
Lexicology. Higher School, Moscow.
10. https://iate.europa.eu/home. European Union Terminology Database.
11. Jasanoff S. (2004), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social
Order. Routledge, London.
12. Johnson L. (2021), Navigating linguistic labyrinths: Strategies for effective
interdisciplinary communication. Interdisciplinary Review, Vol.15, No.4, 89-104.
13. Lakoff G., Johnson M. (2008), Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
14. Palmer F.R. (2001), Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

152
 G. MAHARRAMZADA: INTERDISCIPLINARY POLYSEMY AND TERMINOLOGICAL HOMONYMY

15. Reformatsky A.A. (1968), Term as a Member of the Lexical System of Language.
Problems of Structural Linguistics. Nauka Publishing House, Moscow.
16. Schmitt N. (2010), Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
17. Smith J. (2019), Interdisciplinary communication: Bridging the gap. Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol.45, No.2, 67-82.
18. Steiner P. (2017), Concepts of Truth. Routledge, London.
19. Stengers I. (2018), Concepts of Truth. Routledge, London.
20. Tatarinov V.A. (1996), Theory of Terminology: In 3 Volumes. Volume 1: Theory of the
Term: History and Current State. Moscow Lyceum, Moscow.
21. Toulmin S. (2003), The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
22. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1974), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, Vol.185, No.4157, 1124-1131.
23. Ullmann S. (1978), The Principles of Semantics. Blackwell, Oxford.
24. Vardar B. (2002), Annotated Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. Multilingual Yay, Istanbul.
25. Wenger E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

153