Part of
Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and UsageEdited by Augusto Soares da Silva
[Figurative Thought and Language 11] 2021
► pp. 287–306
Edited by Augusto Soares da Silva
[Figurative Thought and Language 11] 2021
► pp. 287–306
Metaphor, metonymy and polysemy
A historical perspective
Polysemy is a basic principle of the lexis of
English, but the full range of senses of a lexeme and the ways in
which these interact are not often considered in accounts of
metaphor and metonymy. This paper presents a case study of the
lexeme dull, which develops multiple meanings that
do not appear to represent the kind of straightforward concrete >
abstract metaphorical mapping that might be assumed. Rather, the
complex semantic history of the word reveals gradual shifts in
meaning involving metonymy, and change motivated by analogy. I argue
that ignoring word histories risks synchronic ‘misreading’ of the
relationship between their senses (Geeraerts, 2015), and that polysemy should
be acknowledged more prominently in standard accounts.
Keywords: historical semantics, lexical semantics, metaphor, metonymy, polysemy, semantic change, analogy, lexical gaps, antonymy
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The semantic history of dull
- 3.The emergence of the sense ‘not bright’
- 4.Motivation for the meaning ‘not sharp’
- 5.Conclusion
-
Notes -
References -
Appendix
References (28)
Allan, K. (2008). Metaphor and metonymy: A diachronic
approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
(2010). Tracing metonymic polysemy through time: material
for object mappings in the OED. In M. Winters, H. Tissari, & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics: Syntax and
semantics (pp. 163–196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2014). An inquest into metaphor death: Exploring the
loss of literal senses of conceptual
metaphors. Cognitive Semiotics,
5
(1–2), 291–311.
(2015). Lost in transmission? The sense development of
borrowed metaphor. In J. E. Diaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures (pp. 31–50). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 
Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical
networks. In S. Small, G. Cotrell, & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from
psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial
intelligence (pp. 477–508). Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Collins COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. [URL]
Coulson, S. (2006). Metaphor and conceptual blending. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and
linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 8 (pp. 32–39). Oxford: Elsevier.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dale, C. (2017). The natural world in the Exeter Book
riddles. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.
De Smet, H. (2010). Grammatical interference: subject marker for and
the phrasal verb particles out and forth
. In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 75–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dictionary of Old English. [URL]
Early English Books Online. [URL]
English Dictionary. [URL]
Fischer, A. (2000). Lexical gaps, cognition and linguistic
change. In J. Coleman, & C. Kay (Eds.), Lexicology, semantics and lexicology (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Geeraerts, D. (2015). Four guidelines for diachronic metaphor
research. In J. E. Diaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures (pp. 15–27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Historical Thesaurus of English. [URL] [Kay, C., Roberts, J., Samuels, M., & Wotherspoon, I. (Eds.), (2009).
The Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English
Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]
Hough, C. (2004). New light on the verb understand
. In C. Kay, C. Hough, & I. Wotherspoon (Eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics:
Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 21–26 August 2002, Volume II: Lexis and transmission (pp. 139–149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kay, C., & Allan, K. (2015). English historical semantics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kroesch, S. (1926). Analogy as a factor in semantic
change. Language
2
(1), 35–45.
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master Metaphor List, 2nd ed. [URL]
Lehrer, A. (2002). Paradigmatic relations of exclusion and
opposition I: Gradable antonymy and
complementarity. In D. A. Cruse, F. Hundsnurscher, M. Job, & P. R. Lutzeier (Eds.), Handbook of lexicology (pp. 498–506). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Middle English Dictionary. [URL]
Murphy, M. L. (2006). Antonymy and incompatability. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., Vol. 1 (314–317). Oxford: Elsevier.
Onysko, A., & Winter-Froemel, E. (2011). Necessary loans – luxury loans? Exploring the
pragmatic dimension of borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics
43
, 1550–1567.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED) Online. (2000–). [URL] OED: Oxford English Dictionary. 1884–1928; Supplement and Bibliography 1933. Supplement, 1972–1986. 2nd edn., 1989. Additions Series, 1993–1997. 3rd edn. (in progress)
OED Online
, March
2000–, [URL]
Semino, E. (2010). Descriptions of pain, metaphor and embodied simulation. Metaphor and Symbol
25
(4), 205–226.
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Traugott, E. (2012). Linguistic levels: semantics and
lexicon. In A. Bergs, & L. Brinton (Eds.), Historical linguistics of English (HSK 34.1) (pp. 164–177). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
[no author supplied]
2022. Future Directions. In Lexical Sociolinguistics, ► pp. 181 ff. 
[no author supplied]
2022. The Sociolinguistics of Polysemy. In Lexical Sociolinguistics, ► pp. 47 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.