Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon: Online-First ArticlesPolysemies and the one representation hypothesis
Polysemy has attracted much interdisciplinary interest in recent times. Recent discussions in psycholinguistics focus on the different processing profiles of polysemous and homonymous words, and on how to explain such different profiles. Much current research assumes that while homonymous meanings are stored in different lexical entries in the mental lexicon, polysemous senses relate to just one lexical representation, be this a list of senses or a core meaning formed by features common to all the different senses. However, there is growing skepticism towards such a one-representation hypothesis. After differentiating regular and irregular polysemies along several dimensions (not only in terms of sense representation, but also in terms of sources, acquisition and word class distribution), this paper argues that the variants of the one representation model can meet some of the challenges that have been raised. However, there are further challenges that have not yet been considered. On the one hand, nested polysemies (senses generated on the basis of iterations of metonymies or metaphors) put some pressure on the idea that senses of irregular polysemies share some set of features. On the other hand, sharing some features that could constitute a core meaning may not be sufficient for entering in co-activation patterns. In sum, while the paper defends the one-representation hypothesis in the light of recent skepticism, it also calls for further research and an eventual reformulation of the hypothesis.
Keywords: polysemy, lexical entry, copredication, core meanings
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Regular polysemy
- 2.1Inherent and regular polysemy
- 2.2Regular polysemies are metonymy-based
- 2.3Storage and processing
- 2.4Distribution in word classes
- 3.Irregular polysemy
- 3.1(Most) irregular polysemies are metaphor-based
- 3.2Storage and processing
- 3.3Core meanings and polysemy: Are there limits to how thin the core can be?
- 3.4Word class distribution
- 4.Nested polysemy
- 5.Summary and conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References
Apresjan, J. D.
(1974) Regular
polysemy. Linguistics,
14
(2), 5–32. 
Asher, N.
(2011) Lexical
meaning in context. Cambridge University Press.
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
1, 484–504.
Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D.
(2005) The
effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain
Research,
24
1, 57–65.
Brocher, A., Koenig, J. P., Mauner, G., & Foraker, S.
(2018) About
sharing and commitment: the retrieval of biased and balanced irregular polysemes. Language,
Cognition and
Neuroscience, 33(4), 443–466.
Brugman, C.
(1988) The
story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the
lexicon. Garland.
Carston, R.
(2002) Thoughts
and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Blackwell Publishers.
Castroviejo, E., Ponciano, M., Hernández-Conde, J. V. & Vicente, A.
(2024) Development
of nonliteral interpretations in typically developing Spanish speaking children: light verb constructions and figurative
expressions. Studia
Linguistica,
78
1, 8–24.
Chomsky, N.
(2000) New
Horizons in the Study of Language and
Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2016) What
kind of creatures are we?. New York: Columbia University Press.
Collins, J.
(2017) The
copredication
argument. Inquiry, 601, 675–702.
Damirjian, A.
(2023) A
Puzzle About Mental Lexicons and Semantic Relatedness. Rev.Phil.Psych.
Deane, P. D.
(1988) Polysemy
and
cognition. Lingua,
75
1, 325–361.
Dowty, D.
(1979) Word
Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s
PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Evans, V.
(2009) How
Words Mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Oxford University Press.
Falkum, I. L.
(2022) The
development of non-literal uses of language: Sense conventions and pragmatic
competence. Journal of
Pragmatics 1881: 97–107.
Falkum, I. L., Recasens, M. & Clark, E. V.
(2017) ‘The
moustache sits down first’: On the acquisition of metonymy. Journal of Child
Language 44.11: 87–119.
Foraker, S., & Murphy, G. L.
(2012) Polysemy
in sentence comprehension: Effects of meaning dominance. Journal of Memory and
Language,
67
1, 407–425.
Fraser, K. E.
(2022) The
literal/non-literal divide synchronically and diachronically: The lexical semantics of an English posture
verb. Doctoral Dissertation. University of the Basque Country – UPV/EHU.
Frisson, S.
(2009) Semantic
underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics
Compass,
3
1, 111–127.
He, A. X. & Wittenberg, E.
(2020) The
acquisition of event nominals and light verbs. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 14.21: e12363.
Jackendoff, R.
(2022) Lexical
Semantics, in Papafragou, A., Trueswell, J. & Gleitman, L. (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of the Mental Lexicon, Oxford University Press.
Katz, J. J.
(1972) Semantic
theory. Harper & Row.
King, D. & Gentner, D.
(2022) Verb
Metaphoric Extension Under Semantic Strain. Cognitive
Science, 461, e13141.
Klimek-Jankowska, D., Hwaszcz, K. & Wieczorek, J.
(2022) The
spectrum of sense remoteness in polysemy: Bridging computational and theoretical lexicography with
psycholinguistics. Studies in Polish
Linguistics, 171: 31–53.
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L.
(2001) The
Representation of Polysemous Words. Journal of Memory and
Language,
45
(2), 259–282.
Klepousniotou, E.
(2002) The
processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and
Language,
81
(1–3), 205–223.
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, 1–24.
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
1, 11–21.
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
1, 1534–1543.
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women,
fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.
Li, L., Buxó-Lugo, A., Jacobs, C. L., & Slevc, L. R.
(2023) Are
lexical representations graded or discrete? Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology,
77
(5), 909–923.
Liu, M.
(2023) Mental
simulation and language comprehension: The case of copredication. Mind and
Language,
39
1, 2–21.
Löhr, G., & Michel, G.
(2022) Copredication
in context: A predicative processing approach. Cognitive
Science, 461, e13138.
Lombard, A., Huyghe, R., Barque, L. & Gras, D.
Long, M., Shukla, V., & Rubio-Fernández, P.
(2021) The
development of simile comprehension: From similarity to scalar implicature. Child
Development,
92
(4), 1439–1457.
MacGregor, L. J., Bouwsema, J., & Klepousniotou, E.
(2015) Sustained
meaning activation for polysemous but not homonymous words: Evidence from
EEG. Neuropsychologia,
68
1, 126–138.
Majid, A., Boster, J. S., & Bowerman, M.
(2008) The
cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and
breaking. Cognition,
109
1, 235–250.
Martín-González, I., Ronderos, C. R., Castroviejo, E., Schroeder, K. F., Falkum, I. L., & Vicente, A.
forth.). That
child is a grasshopper (because he jumps a lot): children’s development of novel metaphor
comprehension. Journal of Child Language.
Murphy, E.
(2021) Predicate
order and coherence in copredication. Inquiry,
Ortega-Andrés, M. & Vicente, A.
(2019) Polysemy
and co-predication. Glossa: A Journal of General
Linguistics,
4
(1), 1.
Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S.
(2001) Processing
ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and
Cognition,
27
(2), 556–573.
Pietroski, P.
(2018) Conjoining
Meanings: Semantics without Truth Values. Oxford University Press.
Pouscolous, N. & Tomasello, M.
(2020) Early
birds: Metaphor understanding in 3-year-olds. Journal of
Pragmatics 1561: 160–167.
Pritchard, T.
(2019) Analogical
cognition: an insight into word meaning. Review of Philosophy and
Psychology,
10
1, 587–607.
(2022) Proprietary
linguistic
meaning. Synthese 2001, 426.
Pustejovsky, J.
(1995) The
generative lexicon. MIT Press.
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W.
(2002) Making
sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and
Language, 46(2), 245–266.
(2004) Modeling
the Effects of Semantic Ambiguity in Word Recognition. Cognitive
Science,
28
1, 89–104.
Quilty-Dunn, J.
(2021) Polysemy
and thought: towards a generative theory of concepts. Mind and
Language, 361: 158–185.
Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D.
(2010) The
atypical development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension in children with
autism. Autism, 14(1), 29–46.
Srinivasan, M. & Snedeker, J.
(2011) Judging
a book by its cover and its contents: The representation of polysemous and homophonous meanings in four-year-old
children. Cognitive
Psychology,
62
1, 245–272.
(2014) Polysemy
and the Taxonomic Constraint: Children’s Representation of Words that Label Multiple
Kinds, Language Learning and
Development, 10:2, 97–128,
Srinivasan, M., Al-Mughairy, S., Foushee, R., Barner, D.
(2017) Learning
language from within: Children use semantic generalizations to infer new word
meanings. Cognition, 1591, 11–24.
Verkuyl, H. J.
(1993) A
Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge University Press.
Vicente, A.
(2018) Polysemy
and word meaning: An account of lexical meaning for different kinds of content
words. Philosophical
Studies, 1751: 947–968.
(2021) Chomskyan
arguments against truth-conditional semantics based upon variability and
co-predication. Erkenntnis, 861: 919–940.
Vicente, A. & Falkum, I. L.
(2017) Polysemy. In Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Ed. Mark Aronoff. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vosniadou, S.
(1987) Children
and metaphors. Child
Development, 58.31: 870–885.
Winner, E., Rosenstiel, A. & Gardner, H.
(1976) The
development of metaphoric understanding. Developmental
Psychology 121: 289–297.
Yurchenko, A., Lopukhina, A., & Dragoy, O.
(2020) Metaphor
Is Between Metonymy and Homonymy: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials. Frontiers in
Psychology, 111.
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). Academic Press.