Lexeme and Sense
A **lexeme** is an abstract lexical unit represented by word forms and one or more conventional senses. Its **lemma** is the citation form used to identify it. Thus λύω, λύεις, and ἔλυσα belong to one lexeme; they differ in grammatical information. Lexical analysis cannot ignore the word form or its construction merely because the lexeme is abstract.
A **sense** is a conventional meaning distinguished in analysis or a lexicon. **Polysemy** is the presence of related senses. Context usually supports a particular reading, but sense boundaries can be debated, an occurrence may remain underspecified, and wordplay may exploit more than one reading. An English gloss is a translation aid, not a complete definition or a guarantee of one-to-one equivalence.
**John 1:14, excerpt** — **Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο** ("and the Word became flesh"). Compare the lexical unit σάρξ, its nominative singular form here, and its contextual contribution; these are different levels of description.
Reference and Meaning
**Reference** concerns what an expression is used to identify in a discourse or situation; its **referent** is what is identified. **Sense** concerns the conventional meaning that makes such use possible. Expressions can identify the same entity without being synonymous. Conversely, an expression can have a comprehensible sense when its referent is fictional, hypothetical, or not established.
Asking whom or what an expression identifies is distinct from listing its lexical senses. In John 1, identifying the referent of **ὁ Λόγος** requires following the prologue. ‘The divine Word’ is an interpretation of the expression in that discourse, not a definition to insert into every occurrence of λόγος.
**John 1:1, excerpt** — **Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος** ("in the beginning was the Word"). The prologue supplies the discourse evidence for identifying the referent; the isolated lexeme does not encode all of that identification.
Denotation
The term **denotation** is used in more than one way in linguistic description. Here it concerns the conventional applicability of an expression to entities, properties, or situations, distinguished from its emotional or social associations. For a class term, it can be described by the class to which that sense applies. **Reference** concerns an expression's use to identify something in a particular discourse.
Denotation is not necessarily the oldest meaning, a physical meaning, or one invariant ‘core’ present in every use. A polysemous lexeme can have established extended senses. Describing a historical relationship among senses is different from proving that speakers activate every stage of that history on each occasion.
Connotation
**Connotation** concerns affective, social, or evaluative associations, including register and tone. Such associations need evidence from comparable usage; a positive referent does not make a lexeme intrinsically positive in every context.
**ἀγάπη** and **ἀγαπάω** are important in Christian discourse, but the content of a statement about divine love must not be reduced to the isolated word's supposed inherent definition. John 12:43 uses ἀγαπάω of preferring human praise. John 3:35 and 5:20 use ἀγαπάω and φιλέω respectively of the Father's love for the Son. These usages count against a fixed hierarchy in which only ἀγαπάω can express divine or morally superior love. They do not establish that the verbs are interchangeable everywhere. Broad theological contrasts between kinds of love require arguments beyond an alleged invariant lexical split.
**1 John 4:8, excerpt** — **ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν** ("God is love").
**John 12:43, excerpt** — **ἠγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων** ("for they loved human praise"). The noun in the first statement and the related verb in the second must each be interpreted in context; the verbal family is not restricted to morally approved love.
Polysemy
**Polysemy** is the presence of multiple related senses within a lexeme. Identifying these senses is an analytical task: dictionaries may group or divide the evidence differently. The interpreter must consider the specific occurrence rather than assign one translation to an entire chapter.
**σάρξ** illustrates the problem. In John 1:14, ‘flesh’ expresses the Word's becoming human in embodied existence; ‘physical tissue’ alone is an inadequate contextual explanation. Romans 8:3 contains three occurrences in different phrases, including the sending of God's Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. In 8:8–9, being ‘in flesh’ contrasts with being ‘in Spirit’; this is not simply the possession or absence of a physical body. Interpret each phrase locally. ‘Sinful nature’ is an interpretive translation in some settings, not an automatic dictionary replacement for σάρξ.
**John 1:14, excerpt** — **Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο** ("and the Word became flesh").
**Romans 8:3, excerpt** — **ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας** ("in the likeness of sinful flesh").
**Romans 8:9, excerpt** — **ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκί, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πνεύματι** ("but you are not in flesh, but in Spirit"). These are distinct constructions and contextual uses; no single replacement gloss is imposed on them.
Homonymy
**Homonymy** is the relation between lexemes with the same form whose meanings are treated as unrelated, as with English **bank** for a financial institution and **bank** for a river's edge. **Polysemy** instead treats related senses as belonging to one lexeme.
The boundary can depend on historical evidence, perceived semantic relationship, and lexicographical practice. Historical origin and speakers' present analysis are not identical criteria. Also distinguish homonymous lexemes from different inflected forms that happen to look alike. A shared surface spelling by itself settles neither lexical identity nor contextual meaning.
Synonymy
**Synonymy** concerns sameness or similarity of sense between different lexemes. Words can overlap in a particular use while differing elsewhere in construction, register, or collocation. Do not manufacture a theological distinction from every variation, or assume that overlap makes every substitution acceptable.
In **John 21:15–17**, Jesus uses ἀγαπάω in the first two questions and φιλέω in the third; Peter uses φιλέω in all three replies. The lexical pair alone does not prove a higher-versus-lower scale of love. John 3:35 and 5:20 use the two verbs of the Father's love for the Son. Proposed significance for the variation in John 21 must therefore be argued from the dialogue and wider usage. Recognizing debate does not make a fixed love hierarchy an equally established lexical fact.
**John 21:15, excerpt** — **ἀγαπᾷς με** ("do you love me").
**John 21:16, excerpt** — **ἀγαπᾷς με** ("do you love me").
**John 21:17, excerpt** — **φιλεῖς με** ("do you love me").
**John 21:17, Peter’s reply, excerpt** — **φιλῶ σε** ("I love you").
**John 3:35, excerpt** — **ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν** ("the Father loves the Son").
**John 5:20, excerpt** — **ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν** ("for the Father loves the Son"). ἀγαπᾷς and φιλεῖς are present active indicative second singular; φιλῶ is first singular. Notice the iota subscript in ἀγαπᾷς. The last two passages supply evidence against an automatic lower rank for φιλέω.
Antonymy
**Antonymy** is the relation between lexemes of opposite sense. Antonym pairs are exegetically load-bearing where an author builds a conceptual contrast on them. John's Gospel and the Johannine letters in particular are structured around polarities — **ζωή** ("life") vs. **θάνατος** ("death"), and **φῶς** ("light") vs. **σκοτία/σκότος** ("darkness") — in which the antonymy carries theological weight.
**John 1:5, excerpt** — **καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει** ("and the light shines in the darkness"). The opposition is observed in this passage; its discourse and theological significance requires reading the context.
Hyponymy
**Hyponymy** is a relation of sense inclusion: a **hyponym** is more specific than its **hypernym**. In their relevant ordinary senses, κύων, ‘dog’, is a hyponym of ζῷον, ‘animal’: a dog is a kind of animal. Compare this ‘kind of’ relation with the different **part–whole** relation.
Relations attach to particular senses, not automatically to every occurrence of a spelling. A figurative use of ‘dog’ for a person does not require that person to belong to the canine class. Nor should a biological taxonomy be imposed on every contextual use of ζῷον or ἄνθρωπος. The examples illustrate sense relations; they are not quotations from an NT verse.
**Constructed semantic comparison, not an NT quotation:** in their ordinary animal senses, κύων is more specific than ζῷον. Sense inclusion differs from a claim about every figurative use.
Semantic Domains
A **semantic domain** groups related meanings, such as those concerning communication or perception. A domain lexicon such as **Louw–Nida** arranges senses together; different senses of a polysemous lexeme can occur in different domains. Domains can contain several kinds of relations, not only synonymy.
Shared domain membership neither guarantees interchangeability nor proves that substitution is impossible in every context. Read the individual definitions, constructions, and examples. Domain boundaries and sense divisions reflect analysis and can be questioned; a classification is a tool for comparison, not independent proof of an interpretation.
Collocation
**Collocation** is a tendency for words to occur together. A collocational claim should specify the corpus, the relevant senses, the grammatical relationship or span being counted, and the comparison used. A few examples establish occurrence; they do not by themselves establish statistically strong association.
For example, δικαιοσύνη and πίστις occur together in Romans 3:22. That observation can motivate comparison with other passages, but no frequency ranking or fixed sense follows from the pair alone. Study the construction and surrounding discourse as well as the neighboring words.
**Romans 3:22, excerpt** — **δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ** ("but righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ [one interpretation]"). This is an observed co-occurrence, not a measured collocation statistic. The translation of the genitive expression remains an interpretive question (§70.21).
Selectional Preference
**Selectional preferences** are tendencies concerning the semantic kinds of participants that fit a predicate or a particular argument position. In a literal use, ‘drink’ normally takes something drinkable as its object. Figurative or contextually adapted uses can depart from such expectations. Preferences are not inviolable rules.
Distinguish this from **complementation** or **valency**, which describes grammatical patterns. With πιστεύω, a dative, εἰς plus accusative, or a ὅτι-clause concerns the form of the complement; the semantic type of the participant or content is a related but distinct question. Both syntax and meaning matter, and a complement pattern does not automatically establish a unique theological kind of belief.
**Constructed comparison, not an NT quotation:** “drink water” illustrates a semantic fit between a predicate and a drinkable object. Describing whether a Greek complement is a dative or a prepositional phrase instead describes its grammatical form.
Idiom
An **idiom** is a conventional expression whose established meaning is not fully predictable by ordinary composition of its parts. Idioms differ in transparency and flexibility; not every idiom is an absolutely fixed string.
**εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα** often conveys enduring duration. Its translation must include the surrounding construction: under the emphatic negation in John 13:8, the natural force is ‘never’, rather than a detached positive ‘forever’. Recognizing idiomatic usage avoids a mechanical word-for-word rendering. Claims about an expression's Semitic origin require historical comparison, not merely a resemblance in translation.
**John 13:8, excerpt** — **οὐ μὴ νίψῃς τοὺς πόδας μου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα** ("you will never wash my feet"). The emphatic negation and duration expression work together; translating the idiom in isolation would miss the force of the utterance.
Metaphor
**Metaphor** presents one thing in terms of another, often analyzed as a mapping between conceptual domains. It can operate across a phrase or passage, not only within a single lexeme. The mapping is selective: a vine image can develop relations among vine, branches, and fruit without implying that every property of a plant applies to people.
In John 15, the vine-and-branches language develops relations between Jesus and the disciples. In 1 Peter 5:2, shepherding language describes care for a community. Establish the proposed correspondences from the passage. An interpretation of the metaphor is not a new grammatical property encoded in the noun.
**John 15:1, excerpt** — **Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή** ("I am the true vine").
**John 15:5, excerpt** — **ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα** ("you are the branches").
**1 Peter 5:2, excerpt** — **ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ** ("shepherd the flock of God among you"). The excerpts are separately identified. ποιμάνατε is aorist active imperative second plural; its community-directed interpretation depends on the discourse.
Metonymy
**Metonymy** uses an expression to evoke something associated with it, such as a container for its contents. Part–whole figures are also often discussed separately as **synecdoche**; terminology varies. The figurative analysis depends on usage and context, not case morphology alone.
In 1 Corinthians 11:26, drinking ‘this cup’ is conventionally explained by the container-for-contents relation. The container-for-contents relation concerns this expression in its context. In 11:25, the cup, covenant, and blood stand in a more complex relation. A container-for-contents observation does not by itself settle the theological interpretation of that statement. Neither grammatical parsing nor the label ‘metonymy’ resolves the wider interpretive questions of John 6.
**1 Corinthians 11:26, excerpt** — **τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο πίνητε** ("you drink this cup").
**1 Corinthians 11:25, excerpt** — **τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι** ("this cup is the new covenant in my blood"). The first excerpt offers the container-for-contents observation. It does not establish a complete theological account of the second statement.
Semantic Change
**Semantic change** concerns changes over time in conventional senses, distribution, or associations. Older and newer uses can coexist. **ἐκκλησία** illustrates the coexistence of assembly and congregational uses; a single NT passage does not by itself reconstruct the full history of that development.
Acts 19:32 and 19:41 refer to the disorderly gathering at Ephesus, while 19:39 refers to a **lawful assembly** as the appropriate setting for other matters. These occurrences must not all be called the same riotous town-meeting. Similarly, διάκονος has general service uses, but designated community roles are already evidenced within the NT, including Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8. It is misleading to place every office-related use only after the NT. What later institutional details can be inferred remains a separate historical question.
**Acts 19:32, excerpt** — **ἦν γὰρ ἡ ἐκκλησία συγκεχυμένη** ("for the assembly was confused").
**Acts 19:39, excerpt** — **ἐν τῇ ἐννόμῳ ἐκκλησίᾳ** ("in the lawful assembly").
**Acts 19:41, excerpt** — **ἀπέλυσε τὴν ἐκκλησίαν** ("he dismissed the assembly").
**Philippians 1:1, excerpt** — **σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις** ("with overseers and deacons"). Acts 19:39 is not simply another designation of the disorderly gathering. Philippians shows a differentiated community role without establishing every feature of a later institution.
Contextual Meaning
A **contextual reading** is constrained jointly by conventional lexical usage, grammatical construction, the surrounding discourse, and the relevant historical setting. Context does not create unlimited meanings, and a dictionary cannot decide every occurrence without interpretation.
Prefer the reading best supported by the evidence; record uncertainty when alternatives remain plausible. Deliberate ambiguity, wordplay, or an initially misunderstood expression can matter. John 2:19–21 explicitly distinguishes a saying about the temple from the narrator's explanation concerning Jesus' body. Such discourse development cannot be reduced to a rule that every occurrence transparently selects exactly one dictionary gloss. In Romans 8, inspect each σάρξ phrase rather than impose one rendering on the whole passage.
**John 2:19, excerpt** — **λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον** ("destroy this temple").
**John 2:21, excerpt** — **ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγε περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ** ("but he was speaking about the temple of his body"). The narrator clarifies the saying; interpretation follows the discourse development.
Lexical Meaning versus Grammatical Meaning
**Lexical meaning** concerns conventional senses associated with lexemes; **grammatical meaning** concerns contributions from inflection and construction, including number, aspect, voice, mood, and syntactic relations. An actual interpretation integrates them. The grammatical form of an occurrence is therefore relevant to lexical analysis.
Particles, conjunctions, and other function words themselves have conventional meanings and uses; they are not wholly outside the lexicon. Information-structure effects also depend on context and cannot always be read directly from word order. Distinguish these interacting sources of interpretation rather than assigning the whole effect to one word or one ending.
Etymology and Its Limits
**Etymology** investigates a word's history and formation. It can explain relationships and suggest questions for research, but use in the period being interpreted controls a historical text's interpretation. Neither present-day usage nor the oldest reconstructable sense automatically supplies an NT meaning.
**ἐκκλησία** belongs historically with **ἔκκλητος** and the family of ἐκκαλέω. Describing it simply as two complete words ἐκ plus καλέω skips the derivational relationship. More importantly, its historical connection with summoning does not make ‘called-out ones’ its definition in every occurrence. Compare the actual assembly and congregational uses. Chapter 69 explains why formation and attested meaning are distinct questions.
The Root Fallacy
The **root fallacy** treats a word's origin or components as sufficient to determine its contextual meaning. It is a misuse of etymology, not a claim that historical research is worthless.
For **ἐκκλησία**, an association with summoning does not establish ‘called-out ones’ as the lexical meaning. Acts 19 supplies non-church assembly uses, including the distinction between the disorderly gathering and a lawful assembly. Christian congregational uses coexist with these; the passage does not imply that ‘church’ was not yet an available sense.
Reading modern English **dynamite** back into **δύναμις**, ‘power’, is a related anachronistic misuse of a later cognate. A modern illustration may be offered as an illustration, but it is not the ancient word's definition.
Illegitimate Totality Transfer
**Illegitimate totality transfer** imports the whole range of a lexeme's senses or associated ideas into a particular occurrence without contextual warrant. A dictionary's inventory is evidence about possible uses, not a list of meanings that must all be present together. Conversely, a documented pun or sustained ambiguity is not automatically this fallacy.
The debate concerning **πίστις Χριστοῦ** involves both the sense of πίστις and its relation to the genitive expression. ‘Faith in Christ’ and ‘Christ's faithfulness’ are prominent interpretations; labeling the genitive objective or subjective alone does not decide between them, and the possible analyses are not exhausted by a grammatical label. The debate is not itself totality transfer. The error would be importing every sense of πίστις without evidence. Check each passage's actual wording: Romans 3:22, for example, contains πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This longer expression must be analyzed in its own clause.
Using Lexicons Responsibly
Use a **lexicon** to investigate senses, constructions, attested examples, dates, and register. A gloss is a compact translation aid; a definition and its evidence provide more information. Lexicographers also make interpretive judgments, so a verse assigned to a sense is an argument to examine, not an oracle.
**BDAG** covers the NT and other early Christian literature; **LSJ** covers a much broader historical Greek corpus; **LEH** focuses on the Septuagint; **Louw–Nida** organizes NT senses by semantic domains. Their purposes and coverage differ. Check the edition and relevant entry before treating a gloss or sense division as universal.
Read the full relevant entry, inspect its examples in context, compare the grammatical construction, and consider the period and genre of the evidence. Rank plausible readings, distinguish sense from referent and theological inference, and retain uncertainty where the evidence warrants it. An uncommon reading needs support; context is not permission to invent one.
Paradigms
Key Concepts in Lexical Semantics
Conventional meaning, grammatical construction, and context constrain interpretation together. Distinguish lexeme, lemma, form, sense, and reference; investigate alternatives without importing every dictionary meaning. Semantic preferences differ from complement syntax.
| Concept | Definition |
| lexeme | An abstract lexical unit represented by a family of inflected word-forms and associated with one or more conventional lexical senses. A lexeme is distinct from its lemma (citation form), its individual word-forms, and its occurrences in texts. |
|---|---|
| word form | A grammatical realization of a lexeme, such as λύω, λύεις, or ἔλυσα. The word form carries grammatical information; it is distinct from an occurrence of that form in a text. |
| sense | A conventional meaning distinguished for a lexeme. Sense boundaries can be debated; contextual interpretation need not map mechanically to exactly one dictionary gloss. |
| reference | The use of an expression to identify an entity or situation in discourse. The referent is what is identified; reference is distinct from conventional lexical sense. |
| denotation | Here, the conventional applicability of an expression to entities, properties, or situations, distinguished from affective or social associations. Not necessarily an invariant literal or historical core. |
| connotation | Affective, social, or evaluative associations of an expression. They require evidence from comparable usage and need not be identical in every context. |
| polysemy | Multiple related conventional senses of one lexeme. Analyze each occurrence in its construction; do not impose one gloss across all uses or import the whole inventory into one use. |
| homonymy | A relation between lexemes that coincide in form but whose senses are treated as unrelated. Distinguish this from polysemy and from ambiguity among inflected forms. |
| synonymy | Sameness or similarity of sense between different lexemes in relevant uses. Contextual overlap does not guarantee interchangeability in every construction or register. |
| antonymy | Opposition between relevant senses, as with life/death or light/darkness. The particular contrast and its discourse significance require contextual analysis. |
| hyponymy | Sense inclusion: a more specific sense is included within a more general one, as dog within animal. A kind-of relation differs from a part–whole relation. |
| semantic domain | A grouping of related meanings. Different senses of one lexeme can belong to different domains; membership neither guarantees nor categorically excludes contextual interchangeability. |
| collocation | A tendency for words to occur together. Strong-association claims require a specified corpus and comparison; an observed pairing is not itself a frequency result. |
| selectional preference | A tendency concerning the semantic types of participants fitting a predicate or argument position, such as a drinkable object with literal drink. Distinct from grammatical complement patterns or valency. |
| metaphor | Figurative presentation of one thing in terms of another, often analyzed as a selective mapping between domains. It may extend across a phrase or discourse, not only a single word. |
| metonymy | Use of an expression to evoke an associated entity, as a container for its contents. The analysis is contextual; it does not by itself determine a theological interpretation. |
| semantic change | Change over time in conventional senses, distribution, or associations. Older and newer uses can coexist; textual differences alone do not establish a complete chronological history. |
| semantic anachronism | Importing a later sense or usage into an earlier text without historical warrant. Check which senses and constructions are actually attested in the relevant period. |
| root fallacy | Treating etymology or word components as sufficient to determine contextual meaning. Historical relationships may inform research but do not replace evidence from actual usage. |
| illegitimate totality transfer | Importing a lexeme’s entire inventory of senses or associations into one occurrence without contextual warrant. Evidenced ambiguity or wordplay is not automatically this fallacy. |
Chapter glossary
- — lexeme
exegesis
An abstract lexical unit represented by a family of inflected word-forms and associated with one or more conventional lexical senses. A lexeme is distinct from its lemma (citation form), its individual word-forms, and its occurrences in texts.- — word form
exegesis
A grammatical realization of a lexeme, such as λύω, λύεις, or ἔλυσα. The word form carries grammatical information; it is distinct from an occurrence of that form in a text.- — sense
exegesis
A conventional meaning distinguished for a lexeme. Sense boundaries can be debated; contextual interpretation need not map mechanically to exactly one dictionary gloss.- — reference
exegesis
The use of an expression to identify an entity or situation in discourse. The referent is what is identified; reference is distinct from conventional lexical sense.- — denotation
exegesis
Here, the conventional applicability of an expression to entities, properties, or situations, distinguished from affective or social associations. Not necessarily an invariant literal or historical core.- — connotation
exegesis
Affective, social, or evaluative associations of an expression. They require evidence from comparable usage and need not be identical in every context.- — polysemy
exegesis
Multiple related conventional senses of one lexeme. Analyze each occurrence in its construction; do not impose one gloss across all uses or import the whole inventory into one use.- — homonymy
exegesis
A relation between lexemes that coincide in form but whose senses are treated as unrelated. Distinguish this from polysemy and from ambiguity among inflected forms.- — synonymy
exegesis
Sameness or similarity of sense between different lexemes in relevant uses. Contextual overlap does not guarantee interchangeability in every construction or register.- — antonymy
exegesis
Opposition between relevant senses, as with life/death or light/darkness. The particular contrast and its discourse significance require contextual analysis.- — hyponymy
exegesis
Sense inclusion: a more specific sense is included within a more general one, as dog within animal. A kind-of relation differs from a part–whole relation.- — semantic domain
exegesis
A grouping of related meanings. Different senses of one lexeme can belong to different domains; membership neither guarantees nor categorically excludes contextual interchangeability.- — collocation
exegesis
A tendency for words to occur together. Strong-association claims require a specified corpus and comparison; an observed pairing is not itself a frequency result.- — selectional preference
exegesis
A tendency concerning the semantic types of participants fitting a predicate or argument position, such as a drinkable object with literal drink. Distinct from grammatical complement patterns or valency.- — metaphor
exegesis
Figurative presentation of one thing in terms of another, often analyzed as a selective mapping between domains. It may extend across a phrase or discourse, not only a single word.- — metonymy
exegesis
Use of an expression to evoke an associated entity, as a container for its contents. The analysis is contextual; it does not by itself determine a theological interpretation.- — semantic change
exegesis
Change over time in conventional senses, distribution, or associations. Older and newer uses can coexist; textual differences alone do not establish a complete chronological history.- — semantic anachronism
exegesis
Importing a later sense or usage into an earlier text without historical warrant. Check which senses and constructions are actually attested in the relevant period.- — root fallacy
exegesis
Treating etymology or word components as sufficient to determine contextual meaning. Historical relationships may inform research but do not replace evidence from actual usage.- — illegitimate totality transfer
exegesis
Importing a lexeme’s entire inventory of senses or associations into one occurrence without contextual warrant. Evidenced ambiguity or wordplay is not automatically this fallacy.