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 (3)
Cited by three other publications
Werkmann Horvat, Ana, Kristina Štrkalj Despot & Gordana Hržica
2024. Early acquisition of figurative meanings in polysemous nouns and verbs. Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. 
[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 15 october 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.