The sentences in (19–22) show examples of different uses which are possible for certain classes of words. These different uses are often cited as cases of system-atic polysemy, i.e., distinct senses related by a productive rule of some kind.32 However, Cruse (2000; 2004) argues that they are best analyzed as “facets” of a single sense, by which he means “fully discrete but non-antagonistic readings of a word”.33
(19) book(Cruse 2004):
a. My chemistry book makes a great doorstop. [physical object]
31Apresjan (1974: 16) makes the interesting observation that semantic extensions based on metonymy frequently lead to systematic polysemy, which he refers to as “regular polysemy”.
Polysemy based on metaphorical extension is typically non-systematic.
32See for example Pustejovsky (1995), Nunberg & Zaenen (1992).
33Cruse (2000: 116).
5.5 “Facets” of meaning b. My chemistry book is well-organized but a bit dull.
[information content]
(20) bank(Cruse 2000: 116; similar examples includeschool, university, etc.):
a. The bank in the High Street was blown up last night. [premises]
b. That used to be the friendliest bank in town. [personnel]
c. This bank was founded in 1575. [institution]
(21) Britain(Cruse 2000: 117; Croft & Cruse 2004: 117):
a. Britain lies under one metre of snow. [land mass]
b. Britain today is mourning the death of the Royal corgi. [populace]
c. Britain has declared war on San Marino. [political entity]
(22) chicken, duck, etc. (Croft & Cruse 2004: 117):
a. My neighbor’s chickens are noisy and smelly. [animal]
b. This chicken is tender and delicious. [meat]
Cruse describes facets as “distinguishable components of a global whole”.34 The wordbook, for example, names a complex concept which includes both the physical object (the tome) and the information which it contains (the text). In the most typical uses of the word, it is used to refer to both the object and its information content simultaneously. In contexts like those seen in (19), however, the word can be used to refer to just one facet or the other (text or tome).
Cruse’s strongest argument against the systematic polysemy analysis is the fact that these facets are non-antagonistic; they do not give rise to zeugma effects, as illustrated in (23). In this they are unlike normal polysemous senses, which are antagonistic. Under the systematic polysemy analysis we might derive the senses illustrated in (19–22) by a kind of metonymy, similar to that illustrated in (24).35 However, as the examples in (25) demonstrate, figurative senses are antagonistic with their literal counterparts. This suggests that facets are not figurative senses.
(23) a. This is a very interesting book, but it is awfully heavy to carry around.36
b. My religion forbids me to eat or wear rabbit.37
34Croft & Cruse (2004: 116).
35Nunberg (1979; 1995).
36Cruse (2004).
37Nunberg & Zaenen (1992).
101
5 Word senses
(24) a. I’m parked out back.
b. The ham sandwich at table seven left without paying.
c. Yeats is widely read although he has been dead for over 50 years.
d. Yeats is widely read, even though most of it is now out of print.
(25) a. # The ham sandwich at table seven was stale and left without paying.
b. # The White House needs a coat of paint but refuses to ask Congress for the money.
We cannot pursue a detailed discussion of these issues here. It may be that some of the examples in question are best treated in one way, and some in the other. The different uses of animal names illustrated in (22), for example, creature vs. meat, seem like good candidates for systematic polysemy, because they differ in grammatical properties (mass vs. count nouns). But the non-antagonism of the other cases seems to be a problem for the systematic polysemy analysis.
5.6 Conclusion
In this chapter we described several ways of identifying lexical ambiguity, based on two basic facts. First, distinct senses of a single word are “antagonistic”, and as a result only one sense is available at a time in normal usage. The incompatibility of distinct senses can be observed in puns, in zeugma effects, and in the identity requirements under ellipsis. Second, true ambiguity involves a difference in truth conditions; so sentences which contain an ambiguous word can sometimes be truly asserted under one sense of that word and denied under the other sense, in the same context. Neither of these facts applies to vagueness or indeterminacy.
Lexical ambiguity is actually quite common, but only rarely causes confusion between speaker and hearer. The hearer is normally able to identify the intended sense for an ambiguous word based on the context in which it is used. Where none of the established senses lead to a sensible interpretation in a given context, new senses can be triggered by coercion. In Chapter 8 we will discuss some of the pragmatic principles which guide the hearer in working out the intended sense.
5.6 Conclusion
Further reading
Kennedy (2011) provides an excellent overview of lexical ambiguity, inde-terminacy, and vagueness. These issues are also addressed in Gillon (1990).
Cruse (1986: ch. 3) and (2000, ch. 6) discusses many of the issues cov-ered in this chapter, including tests for lexical ambiguity, “antagonistic”
senses, polysemy vs. homonymy, and contextual modification of mean-ing. Aronoff & Fudeman (2011: ch. 5) introduce some ways of describing systematic polysemy in terms of zero-derivation.
Discussion exercises
A: State whether the italicized words illustrate ambiguity, vagueness, or indeterminacy:
1. She spends her afternoonsfilingcorrespondence and her fingernails.
2. He spends his afternoonswashingclothes and dishes.
3. He was abigbaby, even though both of his parents aresmall.
4. The weather wasn’t verybright, but then neither was our tour guide.
5. Mr. Smith smokesexpensivecigars but drives acheapcar.
6. That boy couldn’tcarrya tune in a bucket.
B: In each of the following examples, state which word is ambiguous as demonstrated by the antagonism or zeugma effect. Is it an instance of polysemy or homonymy?
1. “You are free to execute your laws, and your citizens, as you see fit.”a 2. “… and covered themselves with dust and glory.”b
3. Arthur declined my invitation, and Susan a Latin pronoun.
4. Susan can’t bear children.
103
5 Word senses
5. The batteries were given out free of charge.
6. My astrologer wants to marry a star.
C: Figurative senses. Identify the type of figure illustrated by the itali-cized words in the following passages:
1. Fear is thelockand laughter thekeyto your heart.c 2. TheWhite Houseis concerned about terrorism.
3. She has six hungrymouthsto feed.
4. That joke isas old as the hills.
5. It’snot the prettiestquarter I’ve ever seen, Mr. Liddell.d 6. aspleasant and relaxedas a coiled rattlesnakee
7. Headline: Korean “comfort women” get controversial apology, com-pensation from Japanese governmentf
D: Semantic shift. Identify the figures of speech that provided the source for the following historical shifts in word meaning:
1. bead (< ‘prayer’) 2. pastor
3. drumstick(for ‘turkey leg’) 4. glossa(Greek) ‘tongue; language’
5. pioneer (< Old Frenchpeon(ier)‘foot-soldier’; cognate:pawn)
aStar Trek: The Next Generation, via grammar.about.com
bMark Twain,The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
cCrosby, Stills & Nash – “Suite: Judy Blue Eyes”
dSam Mussabini inChariots of Fire.
eKurt Vonnegut inBreakfast of Champions
fnews.com.au, December 30, 2015
5.6 Conclusion
Homework exercises
A: Lexical ambiguity. Do the uses of strike in the following two sen-tences represent distinct senses (lexical ambiguity), or just indeterminacy?
Provide linguistic evidence to support your answer.
a. The California Gold Rush began when James Marshallstruckgold at Sutter’s Mill.
b. Balaamstruckhis donkey three times before it turned and spoke to him.
B: Dictionary entries. Without looking at any published dictionary, draft a dictionary entry formean. Include the use ofmeanas a noun, as an ad-jective, and at least three senses ofmeanas a verb.
C: Polysemy etc.a How would you describe the relationship between the readings of the italicized words in the following pairs of examples?
You may choose from among the following options: polysemy, homonymy, vagueness, indeterminacy, figurative use. If none of these terms seem appropriate, describe the sense relation in prose.
(1) a. Mary ordered anomelette.
b. Theomeletteat table 6 wants his coffee now.
(2) a. Theyledthe prisoner away.
b. Theyledhim to believe that he would be freed.
(3) a. King George III was not veryintelligentand could not read until he was eleven.
b. The squid is actually quiteintelligent, for an invertebrate.
(4) a. Mycousinmarried an actress.
b. Mycousinmarried a policeman.
105
5 Word senses
(5) a. Could you loan me yourpen? Mine is out of ink.
b. The goats escaped from theirpenand ate up my artichokes.
(6) a. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations is toodeepfor me.
b. This river is toodeepfor my Land Rover to ford.
aAdapted from Cruse (2000).