Homonymy, Polysemy and Heterosemy. The Types of Lexical Ambiguity in English

Persson, Gunnar; Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl

doi:10.1515/9783111347349-010

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Extension of these arguments to prepositions is in line with other descriptions where open and closed word classes are treated alike (e.g. Persson 1988, cited in Lichtenberk 1991: 476 with respect to 'particles'). Although some of these cases have been considered cases of polysemy, the literature also includes texts where the analysis in terms of polysemy alongside similar word-class transfer between nouns and verbs has also been discarded on the grounds presented above in this section for the rejection of polysemy in conversion (e.g.…”

Section: Central Conversionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…in Magnusson & Persson (1986: 2-4), allows us to describe the relation between conversion-related pairs as lexical relations with a grammatical qualification, as in categorial hyponymy (cf. Magnusson & Persson 1986;Persson 1988), or as a paronymic rather than paradigmatic relation (cf. Cruse 1986).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…'Heterosemy' has been proposed as a middle term between homonymy and polysemy (Persson 1990: 156, 158), as Persson (1988: 276) argues, 'because of the "split but united" relation which is thus one of its [conversion's] chief characteristics' and that disqualifies both homonymy and polysemy. 'Heterosemy' has been interpreted variously, also because Persson's (1988) words may be interpreted as applying to the terms related by conversion 7 and also to the various senses within one derivative by conversion. Of these, the latter sense has been adopted in the literature, e.g.…”

Section: Morphological Identity: Heterosemy Homomorphymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the various nouns drive derived from the verb drive). Still, the term 'heterosemy' has been interpreted as applicable to the relation between conversion-related pairs (Persson 1988, cited in Lichtenberk 1991Enfield 2006: 297), and has also been adapted to apply to cases 'where two or more meanings or functions that are historically related, in the sense of deriving from the same ultimate source, are borne by reflexes of the common source element that belong in different morphosyntactic categories' (Lichtenberk 1991: 476). In the latter case, Lichtenberk's (1991: 476) interpretation does not necessarily assume that conversion qualifies as heterosemy, nor does it assume a common core sense across terms, as usually happens in conversion.…”

Section: Morphological Identity: Heterosemy Homomorphymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A partly similar case to Lichtenberk (1991) is Enfield (2006). Unlike Magnusson & Persson (1986) and Persson (1988), Enfield (2006: 297-8, 310) uses 'heterosemy' for conversion, if a word is both polysemous and a member of two word classes. Enfield (2006: 297 et passim) distinguishes three types of heterosemy:…”

Section: Morphological Identity: Heterosemy Homomorphymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Conversion in English: homonymy, polysemy and paronymy

Valera

Ruz

2020

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversion is a key type of word-formation process in English, but the precise nature of the relation between base and derivative in conversion is rarely discussed, even if conversion is considered as a dynamic process. When it is considered explicitly, the relation has been described in terms of paradigmatic relations between lexemes, specifically homonymy or polysemy. This is usually without any specification of how converted words accommodate the conditions set by the definition of each of these relations, and as a special type of one or the other, because conversion-related words violate some of those conditions. This article is intended as a systematic review of the literature that discusses the relation between conversion-related words in English. We show that a wide range of proposals have been made to describe the relation: homonymy, heterosemy, homomorphy, zero-derivation (as a relation), polysemy, lexical extension, synsemy, hyponymy and paronymy. We review the extent to which each of these terms fits the relationship in major types of conversion, and argue that, if a relationship is to be described between conversion-related pairs, then Cruse's (1986) separation of semantic relations of a paradigmatic type from paronymic relations is of special relevance here. We propose that, regardless of the direction and type of meaning, paronymy applies across the various specific semantic patterns that conversion may involve. We emphasize, however, the possibility of several relations according to the type of conversion, i.e. different types of conversion may need description in terms of a different relation.

show abstract

Section: Central Conversionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Morphological Identity: Heterosemy Homomorphymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Morphological Identity: Heterosemy Homomorphymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Morphological Identity: Heterosemy Homomorphymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Conversion in English: homonymy, polysemy and paronymy

Valera

Ruz

2020

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

go constructions in Modern Standard Arabic

Abdulrahim

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the constructional behaviour of three of the most frequent go verbs in Modern Standard Arabic: ḏahaba, maḍā, and rāḥa. These verbs are considered somewhat synonymous according to many classical and modern dictionaries of Arabic. Nevertheless, each verb has a distinctive profile manifested in its constructional behaviour, which explains why these verbs are not easily interchangeable in various contexts of use. In this paper, I will examine the prototypical uses of the three MSA go verbs based on corpus data (extracted from arabicorpus.byu.edu) by highlighting the lexico-syntactic frames they each associate with. This is achieved by annotating a large number of contextualized uses (per verb) for a variety of lexico-syntactic features. The data frame is subsequently probed with the help of Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (von Eye 1990; Gries 2004) as a means of highlighting recurring and significant patterns of variable co-occurrences. The quantitative analysis is followed by a qualitative analysis that further explores the lexico-syntactic frames that pertain to different aspects of a deictic motion event. The results obtained from both the quantitative and qualitative analyses highlight the idiosyncratic constructional properties that characterize the use of each verb in various physical and figurative motion event construals.

show abstract

Construct types in language change

Schneider

2023

JHL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article combines ideas and concepts deriving from grammaticalization studies, cognitive linguistics and construction grammar. Specifically, it takes three important ideas developed within grammaticalization research, namely untypical context, bridging or critical context and isolating or switch context (Evans & Wilkins 2000, 2006; Heine 2002), and remodels them with the concepts construct and construction. This enables the definition of three salient construct types present in historical corpora that are placed in the continuum between individual variation and language change: extensional constructs, ambiguous constructs and adaptive constructs. Each construct type characterizes a specific phase in language change. The data presented as illustration of the construct types stem from historical and contemporary corpora of written French, Italian and Spanish.

show abstract

Homonymy, Polysemy and Heterosemy. The Types of Lexical Ambiguity in English

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Conversion in English: homonymy, polysemy and paronymy

Conversion in English: homonymy, polysemy and paronymy

go constructions in Modern Standard Arabic

Construct types in language change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About