Shoes, boots and vertical polysemes
The dynamic construal and conventionality of word senses
This paper considers lexical items such as shoe, whose meaning can be construed more broadly or narrowly (i.e., as either including or excluding boots), and examines how this type of “vertical” meaning variation relates to the distinction between ambiguity and vagueness. I argue that the broader and narrower readings of a single lexical form can be treated as polysemous senses to the extent that they exhibit some symptoms of autonomy as contextually construed sense units. However, as some vertical polysemes’ senses also exhibit symptoms of unity, they fall in between ambiguity and vagueness. As word senses are here defined as contextually construed units of meaning, their autonomy is considered independently from their conventionality. However, a corpus study of pairs of words with a dual inclusion/contrast relationship (including shoe/boot, cup/mug, dog/bitch, meat/chicken and dog/puppy) suggests that even senses that exhibit a low degree of autonomy may nevertheless be conventionalised.
References (53)
Allwood, J
(
2003)
Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In
H. Cuyckens,
R. Dirven &
J. Taylor (Eds.),
Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 29–66). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Becker, T
(
2002)
Autohyponymy: Implicature in lexical semantics, word formation, and grammar.
Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14 (2), 105–136.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J
(
2006)
From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition.
Language, 82 (4), 711–733.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R
(
2002)
Thoughts and utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Church, K., & Hanks, P
(
1990)
Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography.
Computational Linguistics, 16 (1), 22–29.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Collins English dictionary
(9th ed.) (
2007) Glasgow: HarperCollins.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A
(
2004)
Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cruse, D.A
(
2000)
Aspects of the microstructure of word meanings. In
Y. Ravin &
C. Leacock (Eds.),
Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 30–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cruse, D.A
(
2008)
Lexical semantics without stable word meanings: a dynamic construal approach. In
M. Casas Gómez &
I. Rodríguez-Piñero Alcalá (Eds.),
X Jornadas de lingüística (pp. 35–58). Cádiz: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davies, M
(
2004–)
BYU-BNC. (Based on the
British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at
[URL].
Davies, M
(
2012)
A new approach to oppositions in discourse: The role of syntactic frames in the triggering of non-canonical oppositions.
Journal of English Linguistics, 40 (1), 47–73.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V
(
2006)
Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction.
Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (4), 491–534.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V
(
2009)
How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falkum, I.L
(
2011)
The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P
(
1994)
The structure of lexical variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Geeraerts, D
(
1993)
Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries.
Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (3), 223–272.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, H.P
(
1975)
Logic and conversation. In
P. Cole &
J.L. Morgan (Eds.),
Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, H.P
(
1978)
Further notes on logic and conversation. In
P. Cole (Ed.),
Syntax and semantics: Vol. 9. Pragmatics (pp. 113–127). New York: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, M
(
2006)
Against markedness (and what to replace it with).
Journal of Linguistics, 43 (1), 25–70.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, M
(
2007)
Coordination. In
T. Shopen (Ed.),
Language typology and syntactic description. (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hearst, M.A
(
1992)
Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora.
Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on computational linguistics
,
Nantes, France
.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Horn, L.R
(
1984)
Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In
D. Schiffrin (Ed.),
Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 11–42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, Y
(
2009)
Neo-Gricean pragmatics and the lexicon.
International Review of Pragmatics, 11, 118–153.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jones, S
(
2002)
Antonymy: A corpus-based perspective. London: Routledge.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jones, S., Murphy, M.L., Paradis, C., & Willners, C
(
2012)
Antonyms in English: Construals, constructions and canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kempson, R.M
(
1980)
Ambiguity and word meaning. In
S. Greenbaum,
G. Leech &
J. Svartvik (Eds.),
Studies in English linguistics (pp. 7–16). London: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koskela, A
(
2013)
Inclusion, contrast and polysemy in dictionaries: The relationship between theory, language use and lexicographic practice
. Paper presented at the Meaning, Context and Cognition conference 2013, Łódź, Poland.
Labov, W
(
1973)
The boundaries of words and their meaning. In
C.N. Bailey &
R.W. Shuy (Eds.),
New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp. 340–373). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R.W
(
1987)
Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lehrer, A
(
1990a)
Prototype theory and its implications for lexical analysis. In
S.L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.),
Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 368–381). London: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lehrer, A
(
1990b)
Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon.
Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (2), 207–246.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lyons, J
(
1977)
Semantics: Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mettinger, A
(
1994)
Aspects of semantic opposition in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mititelu, V.B
(
2006)
Automatic extraction of patterns displaying hyponym-hypernym co-occurrence from corpora.
Proceedings of the first CESCL
,
Budapest, Hungary
.
Noteboom, S., Weerman, F., & Wijnen, F
(
2002)
Minimising or maximising storage? An introduction. In
S. Noteboom,
F. Weerman &
F. Wijnen (Eds.),
Storage and computation in the language faculty (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oxford English dictionary
(2nd ed.) (
1989) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quine, W.V.O
(
1960)
Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rohdenburg, G
(
1985a)
Dogs, bitches and other creatures.
Journal of Semantics, 41, 117–135.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rohdenburg, G
(
1985b)
Unmarked and marked terms in English. In
G.A.J. Hoppenbrouwers,
P.A.M. Seuren &
A.J.M. M. Weijters (Eds.),
Meaning and the lexicon (pp. 63–71).
Dordrecht: Forris.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, H.-J
(
2010)
Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In
D. Glynn &
K. Fischer (Eds.),
Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–134). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinha, C
(
1999)
Grounding, mapping and acts of meaning. In
T. Janssen &
G. Redeker (Eds.),
Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology (pp. 223–255). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stefanowitsch, A
(
2006)
Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy.
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2 (1), 61–77.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S.T
Taylor, J.R
(
2012)
The mental corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, J.R., Cuyckens, H., & Dirven, R
(
2003)
Introduction: New directions in cognitive lexical semantic research. In
H. Cuyckens,
R. Dirven &
J.R. Taylor (Eds.),
Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R.B
(
2002)
Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tuggy, D
(
1993)
Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness.
Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (3), 273–290.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tuggy, D
(
1999)
Linguistic evidence for polysemy in the mind: A response to William Croft and Dominiek Sandra.
Cognitive Linguistics, 10 (4), 343–368.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wierzbicka, A
(
1996)
Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D
(
2003)
Relevance and lexical pragmatics.
Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15 (2), 273–291.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Carston, R
(
2007)
A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In
N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.),
Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Palgrave, London.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zwicky, A.M., & Sadock, J.M
(
1975)
Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In
J.P. Kimball (Ed.),
Syntax and semantics: Vol. 4. (pp. 1–36). London: Academic Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
KOSKELA, ANU
2017.
Coatsandbrasandjeans– andclothes, too: lexical contrast between hyperonyms and hyponyms.
English Language and Linguistics 21:3
► pp. 475 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Martynyuk, Alla
2016.
GESTURE-VERBAL UTTERANCES FROM THE COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE.
Advanced Education :6
► pp. 47 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.