Regular polysemy and novel word-sense identification
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.
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
References (54)
References
Apresjan, J. (1974). Regular
Polysemy. Linguistics, 1421, 5–32. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction
in Perceptual Symbol Systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
London, 3581, 1177–1187. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ben Hariz Ouenniche, S. (2009). Diminuer
les fluctuations du sentiment
néologique. Neologica, 31, 37–51.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brehm, L., and Alday, P. M. (2022). Contrast
coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and
Language, 1251. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, S. W. (2008). Polysemy
in the mental lexicon. Colorado Research in
Linguistics, 211.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Copestake, A., and Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive
Polysemy and Sense Extension. Journal of
Semantics, 12(1), 15–67. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eckart, T., Elmiger, D., Kamber, A., and Quasthoff, U. (2013). Frequency
Dictionary French. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falkum, I. L., and Vicente, A. (2015). Polysemy:
Current perspectives and
approaches. Lingua, 1571, 1–16. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic
Underspecification in Language Processing. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 3(1), 111–127. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gardin, B., Lefèvre, G., Marcellesi, C., and Mortureux, M. F. (1974). A
propos du « sentiment néologique
». Langages, 361, 45–52. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huyghe, R. (2015). Les
typologies nominales : présentation. Langue
Française, 1851, 5–27. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kleiber, G., and Vuillaume, M. (2011). Sémantique
des
odeurs. Langages, 1811, 17–36. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The
Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Brain and
Language, 811, 205–223. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lopukhina, A., Laurinavichyute, A., Lopukhin, K., and Dragoy, O. (2018). The
Mental Representation of Polysemy across Word Classes. Frontiers in
Psychology, 91. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Murphy, G. L. (2006). Comprehending
new words beyond their original contexts. Skase Journal of Theoretical
Linguistics,
3
(2), 2–8.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers
of Meaning. Journal of
Semantics, 12(2), 109–132. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peters, W., and Kilgarriff, A. (2000). Discovering
semantic regularity in lexical resources. International Journal of
Lexicography, 13(4), 287–312. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., and Murphy, G. L. (2006). The
representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of cognitive
neuroscience, 18(1), 97–109. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The
generative lexicon. MIT press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sablayrolles, J. F. (2003). Le
sentiment néologique. In J. F. Sablayrolles (ed.), L’Innovation
lexicale (pp. 279–295). Paris: Champion.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schumacher, Petra B. (2014). Content and Context in Incremental Processing: “The Ham Sandwich” Revisited. Philosophical Studies, 168, 1, 151–165. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van de Velde, D. (1995). Le
spectre nominal : Des noms de matières aux noms
d’abstractions. Louvain : Peeters.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yurchenko, A., Lopukhina, A., and Dragoy, O. (2020). Metaphor
Is Between Metonymy and Homonymy: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials. Frontiers in
Psychology, 111. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
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.