Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 4, pp 947–968 | Cite as

Polysemy and word meaning: an account of lexical meaning for different kinds of content words

  • Agustin VicenteEmail author
Article

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate about the meaning of lexical words, i.e., words that contribute with content to the meaning of sentences. This debate has coincided with a renewal in the study of polysemy, which has taken place in the psycholinguistics camp mainly. There is already a fruitful interbreeding between two lines of research: the theoretical study of lexical word meaning, on the one hand, and the models of polysemy psycholinguists present, on the other. In this paper I aim at deepening on this ongoing interbreeding, examine what is said about polysemy, particularly in the psycholinguistics literature, and then show how what we seem to know about the representation and storage of polysemous senses affects the models that we have about lexical word meaning.

Keywords

Polysemy Word meaning Semantics and pragmatics Content words 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work benefited from comments from Andreas Brocher, Ingrid Lossius Falkum, Lotte Hogeweg, Marina Ortega, Tim Pritchard, Alexandra Spalek, and an anomymous reviewer. Research for this work was funded by Projects IT769-13 (Basque Government) and FFI2014-52196-P, of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO).

References

  1. Apresjan, J. D. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 14(2), 5–32.Google Scholar
  2. Arapinis, A., & Vieu, L. (2015). A plea for complex categories in ontologies. Applied Ontology, 10, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher, N. (2011). Lexical meaning in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asher, N. (2015). Types, meanings and coercions in lexical semantics. Lingua, 157, 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azuma, T., & van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word’s meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 484–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierwisch, M., & Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 42, 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brocher, A., Foraker, S., & Koenig, J.-P. (2016). Processing of irregular polysemes in sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(11), 181–1798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  9. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carston, R. (2012). Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review, 29, 607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cruse, D. A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dölling, J. (forth) Systematic Polysemy. In Matthewson, L., Meier C., Rullmann, H. & Zimmermann, T.E. (Eds.) The Blackwell companion to semantics.Google Scholar
  16. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordretcht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elman, J. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33, 547–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, V. (2015). A unified account of polysemy within LCCM Theory. Lingua, 157, 100–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falkum, I. L. (2010). Systematic polysemy and the count-mass distinction. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 22, 16–40.Google Scholar
  21. Falkum, I. L. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. (PhD), University College London.Google Scholar
  22. Falkum, I. L. (2015). The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account. Lingua, 157, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Falkum, I.L. (forth.) The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy. Semantics and Pragmatics, Google Scholar
  24. Falkum, I. L., & Vicente, A. (2015). Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches. Lingua, 157, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fennell, C., & Waxman, S. R. (2010). What paradox? Referential cues allow for infant use of phonetic detail in word learning. Child Development, 81, 1376–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foraker, S., & Murphy, G. L. (2012). Polysemy in sentence comprehension: Effects of meaning dominance. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 407–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frisson, S. (2015). About bound and scary books: The processing of book polysemies. Lingua, 157, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frisson, S., & Frazier, L. (2005). Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hank, P. (2013). Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hogeweg, L. (2012). Rich lexical representations and conflicting features. International Review of Pragmatics, 4, 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackendoff, R. (1992). Languages of the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  34. Kilgarriff, A. (1992). Polysemy. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  35. Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., & Romero, C. (2008). Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1534–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 123, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knobe, J., Prasada, S., & Newman, G. E. (2013). Dual character concepts and the normative dimension of conceptual representation. Cognition, 127, 242–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Langacker, R. W. (1984). Active zones. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2013). Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke & R. Marín (Eds.), Subatomic Semantics of Event Predicates. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Li, L., & Slevc, R. L. (2016). Of papers and pens: Polysemes and homophones in lexical (mis)selection. Cognitive Science. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12402.Google Scholar
  44. MacGregor, L. J., Bouwsema, J., & Klepousniotou, E. (2015). Sustained meaning activation for polysemous but not homonymous words: Evidence from EEG. Neuropsychologia, 68, 126–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Machery, E., & Seppälä, S. (2011). Against hybrid theories of concepts. Anthropology and Philosophy, 10, 99–126.Google Scholar
  46. Millikan, R. (2000). On clear and confused ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moravcsik, J. M. (1975). Aitia as generative factor in Aristotle’s philosophy. Dialogue, 14, 622–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nissen, U. K. (2011). Contrasting body parts. Metaphors and metonymies of MOUTH in Danish, English, and Spanish. In Z. Maalej & N. Yu (Eds.), Embodiment via body parts. Studies from various languages and cultures (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam, New York: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pietroski, P. (forth.) Semantic Internalism. In J. McGilvray, (Ed) The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pritchard, T. (2017). Knowing the meaning of a word: Shared psychological states and the determination of extensions. Mind and Language, 32, 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Pustejovsky, J. (2005). A survey of dot objects. Technical report. Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  54. Rabagliati, H., & Snedeker, J. (2013). The truth about chickens and bats: Ambiguity avoidance distinguishes types of polysemy. Psychological Science, 24, 1354–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rappaport Hovav, M. (2014). Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua, 141, 8–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rayo, A. (2013). A plea for semantic localism. Nous, 47, 647–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Spalek, A. (2015). Spanish change of state verbs in composition with atypical theme arguments: Clarifying the meaning shifts. Lingua, 157, 36–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1998). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (pp. 184–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Srinivasan, M., & Rabagliati, H. (2015). How concepts and conventions structure the lexicon: Cross-linguistic evidence from polysemy. Lingua, 157, 124–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Travis, C. (2008). Occasion-sensitivity: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vicente, A. (2012). On Travis cases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vicente, A. (2015). The green leaves and the expert: Polysemy and truth-conditional variability. Lingua, 157, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vicente, A., & Martínez-Manrique, F. (2016). The big concepts papers: A defence of hybridism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67, 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yalcin, S. (2014). Semantics and metasemantics in the context of generative grammar. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), New Essays in Metasemantics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Zwarts, J. (2004). Competition between word meanings: The polysemy of (A) round. In Meier, C. &Weisgerber, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of SuB8. Konstanz, University of Konstanz Linguistics Working Papers.Google Scholar
  68. Zwicky, A., & Sadock, J. (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 1–36). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ikerbasque: Basque Foundation for ScienceBilbaoSpain
  2. 2.Linguistics and Basque Studies DepartmentUniversity of the Basque CountryVitoriaSpain

Personalised recommendations