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

Koskela, Anu

dc.contributor.author	Koskela, Anu	en
dc.date.accessioned	2015-12-03T07:35:13Z
dc.date.available	2015-12-03T07:35:13Z
dc.date.issued	2015-06-15	en
dc.identifier.issn	1731-7533	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/11089/14922
dc.description.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.	en
dc.publisher	Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego	en
dc.relation.ispartofseries	Research in Language;12	en
dc.rights	This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.	en
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/	en
dc.subject	semantics	en
dc.subject	lexicology	en
dc.subject	lexicography	en
dc.subject	polysemy	en
dc.title	Inclusion, Contrast and Polysemy in Dictionaries: The Relationship between Theory, Language Use and Lexicographic Practice	en
dc.page.number	319-340	en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	De Montfort University, Leicester	en
dc.identifier.eissn	2083-4616
dc.references	American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edn. (2000) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.	en
dc.references	Bloomsbury English Dictionary, New Edition (2004) London: Bloomsbury.	en
dc.references	Collins English Dictionary, 9th edn. (2007) Glasgow: HarperCollins	en
dc.references	Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd edn. revised (2005) Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary, 6th edn. (2009) London: HarperCollins.	en
dc.references	Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 5th edn. (2009). Harlow: Longman Pearson.	en
dc.references	Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7th edn. (2005) Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Ariel, Mira (1988). “Referring and accessibility”. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 65-87. DOI: doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011567	en
dc.references	Becker, Thomas (2002). “Autohyponymy: Implicature in lexical semantics, word formation, and grammar”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14(2), 105-136. DOI: doi: 10.1017/S1470542702000065	en
dc.references	Bybee, Joan (2006). “From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition”. Language, 82(4), 711-733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186	en
dc.references	Church, Kenneth & Patrick Hanks (1990). “Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography”. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22-29.	en
dc.references	Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	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.	en
dc.references	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. ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000300418700003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3	en
dc.references	Davies, Mark (2004-). BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/. DOI: doi: 10.1177/0075424210385206	en
dc.references	Geeraerts, Dirk (1993). “Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries”. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 223-272. DOI: doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223	en
dc.references	Geeraerts, Dirk (2001). “The definitional practice of dictionaries and the cognitive conception of polysemy”. Lexicographica, 17, 6-21. DOI: doi: 10.1515/9783110244212.6	en
dc.references	Grice, H. Paul (1975). “Logic and conversation:. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3 (41-58). New York: Academic Press.	en
dc.references	Haspelmath, Martin (2006). “Against markedness (and what to replace it with)”. Journal of Linguistics, 43(1), 25-70. DOI: doi: 10.1017/S0022226705003683	en
dc.references	Hearst, Marti A. (1992). “Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora”. Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on computational linguistics, Nantes, France. DOI: doi: 10.3115/992133.992154	en
dc.references	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.	en
dc.references	Huang, Yan (2009). “Neo-Gricean pragmatics and the lexicon”. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 118-153. DOI: doi: 10.1163/187731009X455866	en
dc.references	Ide, Nancy & Jean Véronis (1993). “Extracting knowledge bases from machine-readable dictionaries: Have we wasted our time?” Knowledge Bases & Knowledge Structures 93, Tokyo.	en
dc.references	Jones, Steven (2002). Antonymy: A corpus-based perspective. London: Routledge.	en
dc.references	Justeson, John S. & Slava M. Katz (1992) “Redefining antonymy”. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 7, 176-184. DOI: doi: 10.1093/llc/7.3.176	en
dc.references	Kempson, Ruth M. (1980). “Ambiguity and word meaning”. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (Eds.), Studies in English linguistics (7-16). London: Longman.	en
dc.references	Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.	en
dc.references	Lehrer, Adrienne (1990a). “Prototype theory and its implications for lexical analysis”. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes (368-381). London: Routledge.	en
dc.references	Lehrer, Adrienne (1990b). “Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon”. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(2), 207-246. DOI: doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.2.207	en
dc.references	Lyons, John (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Manning, Christopher D. & Hinrich Schütze (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.	en
dc.references	Mettinger, Arthur (1994). Aspects of semantic opposition in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.	en
dc.references	Mititelu, Verginica B. (2006). “Automatic extraction of patterns displaying hyponym-hypernym co-occurrence from corpora”. Proceedings of the first CESCL. Budapest, Hungary.	en
dc.references	Murphy, M. Lynne (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989). Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Quine, Willard van Orman (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.	en
dc.references	Rohdenburg, Günther (1985a). “Dogs, bitches and other creatures”. Journal of Semantics, 4, 117-135. doi: 10.1093/jos/4.2.117	en
dc.references	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: doi: 10.1093/jos/4.2.117	en
dc.references	Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Tuggy, David (1993). “Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness”. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273-290. DOI: doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000276548700006&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3	en
dc.references	Zgusta, Ladislav (1971). Manual of lexicography. The Hague: Mouton.	en
dc.references	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.	en
dc.contributor.authorEmail	akoskela@dmu.ac.uk	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1515/rela-2015-0001	en

Pliki tej pozycji

Nazwa:: rela-2015-0001.pdf
Rozmiar:: 405.8KB
Format:: PDF

Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Research in Language (2014) vol.12 nr 4 [6]

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.