Polysemy's paradoxes

Taylor, John R.

doi:10.1016/s0388-0001(03)00031-7

Cited by 52 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This discrepancy has led some scholars to talk of a 'polysemy paradox'(Ravin and Leacock, 2000;Taylor, 2003). 2 In lexicography, this translates into a methodological issue of determining which cases of multiple encodings that should be listed as distinct entries (homonymy) and which should be listed under a single entry (polysemy).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account

Falkum

2015

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large number of word forms in natural language are polysemous, that is, associated with several related senses (e.g., line, run, tight, etc.). While such polysemy appears to cause little difficulty in verbal communication, it poses a range of theoretical and descriptive problems. One concerns its very existence: What is it about our language systems that make them so susceptible to polysemy? In this paper I discuss two approaches to polysemy with different answers to this question: (i) A code-based approach that treats polysemy in terms of the operation of lexicon-internal generative rules, and (ii) an inference-based approach that takes polysemy to be governed by pragmatic inferential processes applying at the level of individual words. After evaluating how each of these accounts fares with respect to some empirical data, I look more broadly at their implications for the emergence and development of polysemy. I conclude that, overall, the pragmatic approach provides the most promising basis for a unified account of the role of polysemy in several domains, and for explaining what motivates its proliferation natural language.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account

Falkum

2015

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, meaning extensions refer to the use of a word for a wider range of referents (Yule, ). Metaphor and metonymy are the most identifiable principles that guide and motivate figurative meaning extensions (Taylor, ). Personification is a subtype of metaphor and refers to the use of an inanimate entity as having human qualities and being capable of human actions (Knowles & Moon, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and proficiency effects on metaphor use among Greek learners

Galantomos

2018

Int J App Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this study is twofold. First, to highlight the place of metaphoric competence in L2 pedagogy and second to investigate the effect of two individual factors, namely gender and proficiency, on the use of metaphors among Greek learners. Metaphoric competence is an integral component of a learners’ overall L2 communicative competence. Therefore, we designed a small‐scale study in order to measure the amount of metaphors used by B2 and C2 Greek learners putting a special emphasis on the variables of gender and proficiency. Our results are in line with available data and suggest on the one hand a female advantage over men at using metaphors and on the other hand a differentiation across language levels with respect to the ability to use metaphors.

show abstract

“…A representação em redes aparece então como modelo alternativo sufi cientemente adequado para descrever o sentido como uma categoria (Geeraerts, 2006;Taylor, 1995Taylor, , 2006. Partindo da concepção de que um item lexical (assim como as demais unidades linguísticas) pode ser estudado em termos de uma categoria conceitual -uma categoria linguística - (Taylor, 2003), a SLC argumenta que o sentido é, por si só, uma entidade complexa, isto é, trata-se de uma categoria (Lakoff, 1987) que descreve os sentidos (potenciais) convencionalmente associados a uma estrutura fonológica (forma lexical) estruturada em formato de uma rede. É importante notar ainda que, conforme argumenta Blank (2003), quando dizemos que um item lexical é polissêmico, não signifi ca dizer que todos os sentidos associados àquele item estão relacionados ou que possuem algo em comum.…”

Section: A Polissemia Como Uma Rede De Sentidosunclassified

Redes de polissemia: um mapeamento entre sentidos polissêmicos em ontologias semiformais

Alves

Chishman

2011

Calidoscópio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Redes de polissemia: um mapeamento entre sentidos polissêmicos em ontologias semiformaisPolysemy networks: Mapping between polysemous sense in semiformal lexical ontology RESUMO -Fundamentando-se no paradigma cognitivo de descrição de língua, este trabalho tem como objetivo representar a polissemia de nominais de modo útil a sistemas computacionais. A tarefa desenvolveu-se em três domínios mutuamente complementares: linguístico, linguístico-computacional e computacional. Olhar para o fenômeno do signifi cado múltiplo sob o viés da Semântica Lexical Cognitiva possibilitou descrever os sentidos como uma entidade complexa, estruturada em termos de uma rede de polissemia. Palavras-chave: polissemia, redes de polissemia, relações de polissemia, ontologias, wordnet.ABSTRACT -Based on the cognitive framework of language description, this paper aims at representing noun polysemy so that it can be useful to computational systems. The task is tackled in three mutually complementary domains: linguistic, computational-linguistic, and computational domains. Regarding the phenomenon of the multiple meaning from the Cognitive Lexical Semantics perspective has allowed for describing meanings as a complex entity, structured in terms of a polysemic network.

show abstract

Polysemy's paradoxes

Cited by 52 publications

References 21 publications

The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account

The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account

Gender and proficiency effects on metaphor use among Greek learners

Redes de polissemia: um mapeamento entre sentidos polissêmicos em ontologias semiformais

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About