Inclusion, Contrast and Polysemy in Dictionaries: The Relationship between Theory, Language Use and Lexicographic Practice

Anu Koskela

doi:10.1515/rela-2015-0001

Authors

Anu Koskela De Montfort University, Leicester

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0001

Keywords:

semantics, lexicology, lexicography, polysemy

Abstract

This paper explores the lexicographic representation of a type of polysemy that arises when the meaning of one lexical item can either include or contrast with the meaning of another, as in the case of dog/bitch, shoe/boot, finger/thumb and animal/bird. A survey of how such pairs are represented in monolingual English dictionaries showed that dictionaries mostly represent as explicitly polysemous those lexical items whose broader and narrower readings are more distinctive and clearly separable in definitional terms. They commonly only represented the broader readings for terms that are in fact frequently used in the narrower reading, as shown by data from the British National Corpus.

Author Biography

Anu Koskela, De Montfort University, Leicester

Anu Koskela received her Doctorate in Linguistics from the University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, and currently works as a Lecturer in English Language at De Montfort University in Leicester, UK. Her research is focused on lexical semantics and cognitive linguistics, particularly on polysemy, categorisation, meaning relations and metonymy. She is the co-author (with M. Lynne Murphy) of Key Terms in Semantics (2010, Continuum).

References

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edn. (2000) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Google Scholar

Bloomsbury English Dictionary, New Edition (2004) London: Bloomsbury.
Google Scholar

Collins English Dictionary, 9th edn. (2007) Glasgow: HarperCollins
Google Scholar

Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd edn. revised (2005) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary, 6th edn. (2009) London: HarperCollins.
Google Scholar

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 5th edn. (2009). Harlow: Longman Pearson.
Google Scholar

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th edn. (2005) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira (1988). “Referring and accessibility”. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 65-87. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700011567
Google Scholar

Becker, Thomas (2002). “Autohyponymy: Implicature in lexical semantics, word formation, and grammar”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14(2), 105-136. DOI: 10.1017/S1470542702000065
Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan (2006). “From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition”. Language, 82(4), 711-733.
Google Scholar

Church, Kenneth & Patrick Hanks (1990). “Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography”. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22-29.
Google Scholar

Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Cruse, D. Alan (2000). “Aspects of the microstructure of word meanings”. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (30-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Davies, Matt (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.
Google Scholar

Davies, Mark (2004-). BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ DOI: 10.1177/0075424210385206
Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk (1993). “Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries”. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 223-272. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223
Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk (2001). “The definitional practice of dictionaries and the cognitive conception of polysemy”. Lexicographica, 17, 6-21. DOI: 10.1515/9783110244212.6
Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul (1975). “Logic and conversation:. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3 (41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin (2006). “Against markedness (and what to replace it with)”. Journal of Linguistics, 43(1), 25-70. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226705003683
Google Scholar

Hearst, Marti A. (1992). “Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora”. Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on computational linguistics, Nantes, France. DOI: 10.3115/992133.992154
Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. (1984). “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference”. In D Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context (11-42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Google Scholar

Huang, Yan (2009). “Neo-Gricean pragmatics and the lexicon”. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 118-153. DOI: 10.1163/187731009X455866
Google Scholar

Ide, Nancy & Jean Véronis (1993). “Extracting knowledge bases from machine-readable dictionaries: Have we wasted our time?” Knowledge Bases & Knowledge Structures 93, Tokyo.
Google Scholar

Jones, Steven (2002). Antonymy: A corpus-based perspective. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Justeson, John S. & Slava M. Katz (1992) “Redefining antonymy”. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 7, 176-184. DOI: 10.1093/llc/7.3.176
Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M. (1980). “Ambiguity and word meaning”. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (Eds.), Studies in English linguistics (7-16). London: Longman.
Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar

Lehrer, Adrienne (1990a). “Prototype theory and its implications for lexical analysis”. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes (368-381). London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Lehrer, Adrienne (1990b). “Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon”. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(2), 207-246. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.2.207
Google Scholar

Lyons, John (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Manning, Christopher D. & Hinrich Schütze (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar

Mettinger, Arthur (1994). Aspects of semantic opposition in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar

Mititelu, Verginica B. (2006). “Automatic extraction of patterns displaying hyponym-hypernym co-occurrence from corpora”. Proceedings of the first CESCL. Budapest, Hungary.
Google Scholar

Murphy, M. Lynne (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Quine, Willard van Orman (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günther (1985a). “Dogs, bitches and other creatures”. Journal of Semantics, 4, 117-135.
Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günther (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 (63-71). Dordrecht: Forris. DOI: 10.1093/jos/4.2.117
Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Tuggy, David (1993). “Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness”. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273-290. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273
Google Scholar

Zgusta, Ladislav (1971). Manual of lexicography. The Hague: Mouton.
Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. & Jerrold M. Sadock (1975). “Ambiguity tests and how to fail them”. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 4 (1-36). London: Academic Press.
Google Scholar