Fontaine (2017: 12-3):
Hanks’ solution is to identify the main semantic components as constituting the meaning potential of the lexeme. The semantic components for BANK include, according to Hanks (2013:70):IS an institution.
IS a large building.
FOR storage.
FOR safekeeping of things.
FOR (esp.) safekeeping of finance/money.
CARRIES out transactions.
CONSISTS of a staff of people.
Semantic components are “separate, combinable, exploitable entities” (ibid.). The instantiated lexical item such as in (9) or (10) will involve some combination of the components. Using semantic components this way enables a clearer sense of where the division between polysemy and homonymy lies. For example, BANK as in river bank does not share any semantic components with BANK in the examples which suggests separate lexemes, despite the similar form. For Hanks, a word gets its meaning from its use and in this sense, meaning is dynamic.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, these two homonyms are also construed as distinct lexical items in SFL Theory, since SFL views language 'from above' — from the perspective of the meaning that is realised — and each word construes a different meaning. This is clearly unknown to Fontaine, since she has cited work from a different theory to make the point.
[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the term 'word' involves two distinct abstractions: (i) word as a grammatical rank unit that realises functions of group/phrase structure, and (ii) word as lexical item that realises the most delicate features of lexicogrammatical systems. The meaning of a word is thus construed by both its grammatical function and lexical specification. The use of a word is its instantiation during logogenesis, and the dynamics of meaning are modelled in terms of the three dimensions of semogenesis: logogenesis, ontogenesis and phylogenesisis.