Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 18:1 (2023) ► pp.94–119

Regular polysemy and novel word-sense identification

ORCID logo | University of Fribourg
ORCID logo | University of Fribourg
ORCID logo | Université Sorbonne Paris Nord | LLF, CNRS
ORCID logo | Université Paris Cité | LLF, CNRS
This study examines speakers’ intuitions about novel word senses created through regular polysemy patterns. We investigate the effect of scalar regularity and lexical figure (metaphor vs. metonymy) on the identification of novel word senses, based on a detection experiment. It is shown that the more regular a polysemy pattern is, the less salient are the novel senses it produces, and that metaphorical patterns derive more salient novel senses than metonymic patterns. These results provide insights into the processing of novel word senses and support a non-homogeneous mental representation of regular polysemous words.
Keywords: novel word sense, neological intuition, regular polysemy, metonymy, metaphor
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Ambiguous words in the mental lexicon
    • Processing novel word senses
    • Measuring the regularity of polysemy patterns
  • Selection and evaluation of polysemy patterns
  • Preliminary study
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Results
  • Neologism detection experiment
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Supplementary material
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.21002.lom
References (54)
References
Apresjan, J. (1974). Regular Polysemy. Linguistics, 1421, 5–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R., Davidson, D. J., and Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S.-T., and Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 1251, 47–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction in Perceptual Symbol Systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, 3581, 1177–1187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed effects models using eigen and s4. r package version 1.1–6. URL: [URL]
Bastuji, J. (1974). Aspects de la néologie sémantique. Langages, 361, 6–19.Google Scholar
Ben Hariz Ouenniche, S. (2009). Diminuer les fluctuations du sentiment néologique. Neologica, 31, 37–51.Google Scholar
Bevilacqua, M., and Navigli, R. (2020). Breaking through the 80% glass ceiling: Raising the state of the art in Word Sense Disambiguation by incorporating knowledge graph information. In D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. Tetreault (Eds.), Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 2854–2864). URL: [URL]. DOI logo
Bonin, P., Meot, A., and Bugaiska, A. (2018). Concreteness Norms for 1,659 French Words: Relationships with other Psycholinguistic Variables and Word Recognition Times. Behavior Research Methods, 501, 2366–2387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brehm, L., and Alday, P. M. (2022). Contrast coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 1251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brocher, A., Koenig, J. P., Mauner, G., and Foraker, S. (2018). About sharing and commitment: the retrieval of biased and balanced irregular polysemes. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(4), 443–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. W. (2008). Polysemy in the mental lexicon. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 211.Google Scholar
Catricalà, E., Della Rosa, P. A., Plebani, V., Vigliocco, G., and Cappa, S. F. (2014). Abstract and concrete categories? Evidences from neurodegenerative diseases. Neuropsychologia, 611, 271–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Copestake, A., and Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension. Journal of Semantics, 12(1), 15–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dölling, J. (2020). Systematic polysemy. In D. Gutzmann, L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann, and T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., and Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 271, 429–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckart, T., Elmiger, D., Kamber, A., and Quasthoff, U. (2013). Frequency Dictionary French. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Eddington, C. M., and Tokowicz, N. (2015). How meaning similarity influences ambiguous word processing: The current state of the literature. Psychonomic bulletin and review, 22(1), 13–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falkum, I. L., and Vicente, A. (2015). Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches. Lingua, 1571, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments : Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 291, 181–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic Underspecification in Language Processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S., and Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366–1383.Google Scholar
Frisson, S., and Pickering, M. (2007). The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard. Language and Cognitive Processes, 221, 595–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardin, B., Lefèvre, G., Marcellesi, C., and Mortureux, M. F. (1974). A propos du « sentiment néologique ». Langages, 361, 45–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huyghe, R. (2015). Les typologies nominales : présentation. Langue Française, 1851, 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P., and Suchomel, V. (2013). The tenten corpus family. 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL, 125–127.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. C. D. (2014). Extension Nakagawa and Schielzeth’s R 2 GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 51, 944–946. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, G., and Vuillaume, M. (2011). Sémantique des odeurs. Langages, 1811, 17–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Brain and Language, 811, 205–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., and 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), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., Titone, D., and 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 (6), 1534–1543.Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., and Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and language, 123(1), 11–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombard, A., Huyghe, R., and Gygax, P. (2021). Neological intuition in French: a study of formal novelty and lexical regularity as predictors. Lingua, 2541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lopukhina, A., Laurinavichyute, A., Lopukhin, K., and Dragoy, O. (2018). The Mental Representation of Polysemy across Word Classes. Frontiers in Psychology, 91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maciejewski, G., Rodd, J. M., Mon-Williams, M., and Klepousniotou, E. (2020). The cost of learning new meanings for familiar words. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35 (2), 188–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2006). Comprehending new words beyond their original contexts. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3 (2), 2–8.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S., and Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from Generalized Linear Mixed-effects Models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of Meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G., and Zaenen, A. (1992). Systematic polysemy in lexicology and lexicography. In H. Tommola, K. Varantola, T. Salmi-Tolonen, and J. Schopp (Eds.), Proceedings of the Euralex II (pp. 386–396). University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Peters, W., and Kilgarriff, A. (2000). Discovering semantic regularity in lexical resources. International Journal of Lexicography, 13(4), 287–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., and Murphy, G. L. (2006). The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 18(1), 97–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT press.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. URL: [URL]
Rabagliati, H., and Snedeker, J. (2013). The truth about chickens and bats: Ambiguity avoidance distinguishes types of polysemy. Psychological science, 24(7), 1354–1360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renouf, A. (2013). A finer definition of neology in English: The life-cycle of a word. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 571, 177–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodd, J. M., Berriman, R., Landau, M., Lee, T., Ho, C., Gaskell, M. G., and Davis, M. H. (2012). Learning new meanings for old words: effects of semantic relatedness. Memory and Cognition, 40(7), 1095–1108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sablayrolles, J. F. (2003). Le sentiment néologique. In J. F. Sablayrolles (ed.), L’Innovation lexicale (pp. 279–295). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B. (2014). Content and Context in Incremental Processing: “The Ham Sandwich” Revisited. Philosophical Studies, 168, 1, 151–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., and Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential Context Effects in the Comprehension of Abstract and Concrete Verbal Materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 82–102.Google Scholar
Smyk-Bhattacharjee, D. (2009). Lexical Innovation on the Internet – Neologisms in Blogs. PHD thesis presented to the Faculty of Arts of the University of Zurich.
Tokowicz, N., and Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5), 727–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, D. (1995). Le spectre nominal : Des noms de matières aux noms d’abstractions. Louvain : Peeters.Google Scholar
Weiland-Breckle, H., and Schumacher, P. B. (2017). Artist-for-work metonymy: Type clash or underspecification? The Mental Lexicon, 12(2), 219–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yurchenko, A., Lopukhina, A., and Dragoy, O. (2020). Metaphor Is Between Metonymy and Homonymy: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials. Frontiers in Psychology, 111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Vicente, Agustín
2024. Polysemies and the one representation hypothesis. The Mental Lexicon DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.