1. Introduction

The problem of polysemy has always occupied a central position in both Russian and foreign linguistics, generating a substantial body of research conducted within diverse theoretical paradigms — from structural-semantic and lexicographic approaches to cognitive, corpus-based and usage-oriented frameworks [16], [19], [22]. Recent years have witnessed a growing emphasis on empirical validation of semantic theories through corpus data, with researchers increasingly combining quantitative analysis with qualitative interpretive procedures [17], [20]. Despite this wealth of scholarly attention, lexicographic descriptions continue to exhibit a systematic lag behind the dynamic, evolving nature of actual language use, where the communicative frequency of individual meanings shifts under the influence of extra-linguistic factors. Dictionary entries often fail to capture the dynamic evolving nature of the language. Therefore, studying the actual meanings used in speech is gaining importance. This research is relevant for updating lexicographic sources and methods of teaching foreign languages for professional communication, especially in domains where terminological and general-purpose meanings interact. This line of research aligns with the broader trend in usage-based linguistics, which posits that language structure emerges from language use and that frequency of occurrence is a key determinant of cognitive representation [15], [18], [21].

The present study is carried out within the framework of the concept of lexical-grammatical polysemy developed by M.A. Sternina (Voronezh linguistic school). This approach is adopted because it offers an integrative view of polysemy that unites the lexical and grammatical levels of language.

The object of this study is the English lexeme order.

The subject is the communicative relevance (frequency) of its sememes and lexical-grammatical variants of sememes.

The aim is to identify the communicative relevance of sememes and lexical-grammatical variants of sememes of the semanteme order and compare these findings with its lexicographic description.

2. Research methods and principles

To achieve the goal, the following tasks have been set: analyzing dictionary entries [11], [12], [13] to compile an integrated lexicographic meaning [8], sampling and analyzing 500 contexts from Reverso Context, describing the actual semanteme, calculating the Index of Communicative Relevance (ICR) of sememes within a semanteme (the ratio of the number of occurrences of a sememe to the total number of occurrences of the lexeme) [4, P. 6] and its lexical-grammatical variants of a sememe within a semanteme (the ratio of the number of occurrences of lexical-grammatical variants representing a particular part of speech seme to the total number of occurrences of that sememe) [6, P. 9-10]; comparing the frequency of non-terminological (general) and terminological sememes; and interpreting the results in the context of dynamic language processes.

The choice of Reverso Context as the empirical basis for the study was determined by its balanced representation of contemporary written and spoken registers. While the platform has been less frequently used in academic corpus linguistics than established resources such as the BNC, for example, it offers several practical advantages for studies of lexical semantics:

1) it presents authentic contextualized examples taken from various text types;

2) it is freely accessible;

3) it provides a sufficient number of examples.

While analyzing the extracted samples, we came across certain limitations, namely inappropriate machine translation and inaccuracies. It seemed to be reasonable to rely on our linguistic intuition to verify sememe differentiation of the polysemantic word under discussion. Nevertheless, the platform has proved to be a valid source of a representative sample of naturally occurring discourse that enables testing M.A. Sternina’s approach.

3. Main results

The theoretical basis rests on the works in semantics, terminology and polysemy theory. Special emphasis has been placed on the differentiation of terms and commonly used words. While D.S. Lotte stated that terms should be unambiguous and system-bound [5], scholars like A.I. Moiseev [7] and E.I. Golovina [1] acknowledge that terms often demonstrate polysemy and synonymy. Our study confirms that order functions as a consubstantial lexeme (the term of S.V. Grinev-Grinevich [2, P. 27]), appearing in both everyday and professional speech. This observation supports recent findings that many specialized terms broaden their meanings and are used in ordinary speech, contradicting the outdated idea that terms must always be clear and single-meaning [14], [23].

Following M.A. Sternina's approach, we treat cases where a unit functions as different parts of speech not as homonymy but as lexical-grammatical polysemy. The latter can be of two types: proper lexical-grammatical polysemy (different lexical meanings correspond to different lexical-grammatical semes) or lexical-grammatical variance (one set of lexical semes corresponds to multiple lexical-grammatical semes) [9].

We employed a comprehensive approach combining comparative-parametric [10], contextual and component analysis methods. The quantitative criteria minimize subjective interpretation. From 500 contexts extracted from Reverso Context, each usage was matched to a specific sememe from the integrated dictionary definition (i.e. 27 sememes in the analyzed semanteme).

Our analysis of order has identified 20 sememes demonstrating proper lexical-grammatical polysemy (1 sememe at the level of a verb, 19 at the level of a noun) and 7 sememes demonstrating lexical-grammatical variance (at the level of a verb and a noun). Furthermore, the semanteme order contains 12 terminological sememes (e.g., polit. "system, state structure", etc.), 8 consubstantial sememes (e.g., "warrant, permit", etc.), and 7 general-purpose sememes (e.g., "to restore to working order/working order", etc.).

The contextual analysis has revealed an actual semanteme (that includes only those sememes that are communicatively relevant in contemporary speech [3, P. 4]) containing 15 communicatively relevant sememes. The ICR revealed a discrepancy between lexicographic representation and the actual usage of sememes. The most frequent sememe, demonstrating lexical-grammatical variance, is "to purchase / purchase" with the ICR of 25% (the ICR of its verbal lexical-grammatical variant is 1%, while the ICR of its substantive lexical-grammatical variant is 24%). Substantive sememes and variants are overwhelmingly more frequent than the verbal ones. Only one independent verbal sememe ("to manage, regulate") has been identified with zero ICR. The most frequent verbal lexical-grammatical variant is the one of the sememe "to order, request (in a restaurant, cafe) / order, request (in a restaurant, cafe)" (7,6% / 4,6%). All other verbal lexical-grammatical variants indicate their communicative irrelevance since their ICR equals zero.

Regarding special vs. non-special meanings, the latter show the highest communicative potential. The highest communicative frequency indices are observed for the commonly used substantive lexical-grammatical variant (24%) of the sememe "to order, purchase / order, purchase"; a substantive sememe "system (established order)" (18,6%), etc. Terminological meanings show lower demand: the most frequent ones are polit. "the state system" (6,2%) and mil. "to order, to command" (2,6%), etc.

4. Discussion

The comparison with lexicographic sources shows that some previously recorded sememes (e.g., relig. "a group of people who join together for religious or similar reasons and live according to particular rules") are practically absent from the modern speech. Conversely, meanings related to economics, politics and daily life are becoming more common reflecting current social concerns.

We consider it reasonable to introduce the cumulative index of communicative relevance of commonly used /terminological / consubstantial sememes and their lexical-grammatical variants within a semanteme (the sum of index values of communicative relevance of commonly used / terminological / consubstantial sememes and their lexical-grammatical variants within a semanteme). The cumulative ICR for commonly used sememes is 78,2%, for consubstantial — 12,6% and for terminological 9,2% reflecting the lexical system’s fundamental property: the core of polysemantic words is formed by commonly used meanings serving everyday communication, while special meanings occupy peripheral positions and are mainly activated in professional contexts. Despite the significant number of terminological substantive sememes in the semanteme, their ICR values are extremely low.

Based on the ICR values, we propose the following semanteme organization:

– The core of a semanteme is formed by sememes with the ICR that is more than or equal to 15%: a commonly used sememe demonstrating lexical-grammatical variance "to purchase /purchase" (25% where 1% is the ICR of its verbal lexical-grammatical variant, 24% — of its substantive lexical-grammatical variant); a substantive commonly used sememe "system, established order" (18,6%).

– The close periphery contains sememes with the ICR that is between 5% and 15%: a substantive lexical-grammatical variant "to arrange / arrangement" (12,8%); a substantive lexical-grammatical variant of the sememe "to restore to working order / working order, condition" (5,8%); terminological substantive sememe polit. "system, state structure" (6,2%) which by our criteria also falls into the close periphery. The verbal lexical-grammatical variant of the sememe "to order (in a café, restaurant) / order, portion (in a café, restaurant)" is 7,6% while its substantive lexical-grammatical variant is 4,6%.

– The far periphery includes sememes with the ICR that is between 0,1% and 5%: a substantive lexical-grammatical variant "to order, request (in a restaurant, cafe) / order, request (in a restaurant, cafe)" (4,6%); a substantive consubstantial sememe "warrant; permit; pass" (4%); two substantive commonly used sememes: "scale, level" (3,2%), "fairness" (0,6%); a substantive lexical-grammatical variant of the sememe milit. "to command / command" (2,6%); a terminological substantive sememe "regulations, charter" (1,4%); two consubstantial substantive sememes: "social group" (0,6%) "insignia" (0,4%) and one terminological sememe fin. "money transfer" (0,4%).

Several verbal lexical-grammatical variants have proved to be communicatively irrelevant with zero ICR. These include the verbal lexical-grammatical variants of the following sememes: "to arrange / arrangement", "to restore to working order / working order, condition", milit. "to command / command", "to prescribe / prescription". The independent verbal sememe "to direct, manage, regulate" has also shown zero ICR.

5. Conclusion

The study demonstrates a significant gap between lexicographic descriptions and the actual usage. The actual semanteme of order consists of 15 communicatively relevant sememes, which is considerably narrower than its dictionary representation (27 sememes). The core is dominated by substantive, commonly used sememes, namely "to purchase / purchase" and "system, established order" reflecting the predominantly nominative character of English, especially in business and administrative discourses. Verbal sememes and variants are largely peripheral, with several sememes showing zero communicative relevance indicating they are falling out of active use. While terminological meanings exist, they are significantly less frequent than general ones. The dynamics demonstrate the adaptive nature of the language, where lexical systems prioritize efficiency and everyday communicative needs. The research contributes to the polysemy theory and demonstrates the practical value of the comparative-parametric method in studying living speech. The comparative-parametric method proves its relevance for updating dictionaries and language teaching.

The additional file for this article can be found as follows: