The Spectrum of Sense Remoteness in Polysemy: Bridging Computational and Theoretical Lexicography with Psycholinguistics (Part 1)

Dorota Klimek-Jankowska,

Krzysztof Hwaszcz,

Justyna Wieczorek

Abstrakt

Ten dwuczęściowy artykuł konsoliduje fakty dotyczące polisemii z zakresu psycholingwistyki oraz leksykografii teoretycznej i obliczeniowej oraz prezentuje wyniki badań ilościowych i jakościowych przeprowadzonych na dużym zbiorze danych polisemicznych w języku polskim, na podstawie których proponujemy uszczegółowioną klasyfikację polisemii oraz opracowujemy poszerzone spektrum podobieństwa sensów słów wieloznacznych. W pierwszej części publikacji omówiono psycholingwistyczne modele reprezentacji polisemii w mentalnym leksykonie oraz wprowadzono podstawowe spektrum podobieństwa sensów, zaproponowane w literaturze przedmiotu. Przedstawiono też metodologię oraz wyniki badań ilościowych przeprowadzonych dla par sensów wyrazów polisemicznych losowo wybranych ze Słowosieci i pozyskanych dzięki wsparciu Centrum Technologii Językowych CLARIN-PL (polskiej sekcji europejskiej infrastruktury badawczej CLARIN ERIC). Wyniki naszego badania pokazują, że najczęściej reprezentowaną polisemią są następujące typy: polisemia gniazdowa, polisemia przez metaforę i polisemia przez metonimię. W drugiej części publikacji poszerzamy spektrum podobieństwa sensów i uszczegóławiamy klasyfikację polisemii na podstawie badania jakościowego. Przedstawiamy także nowe obserwacje na temat różnych typów polisemii wchodzących w skład tego spektrum, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem polisemii gniazdowej.

ABSTRACT

This two-part paper bridges insights from psycholinguistics and from theoretical and computational lexicography to develop a fine-grained classification of polysemy organized along a wider spectrum of sense remoteness of ambiguous words in Polish based on the investigation of a large collection of linguistic data.1 In the first part, we equip readers with background knowledge on different psycholinguistic views on polysemy and we introduce the basic spectrum of sense remoteness proposed in earlier literature. We also present the methodology of our research and we report the results of our quantitative study based on a large sample of sense pairs randomly extracted from plWordNet This two-part paper bridges insights from psycholinguistics and from theoretical and computational lexicography to develop a fine-grained classification of polysemy organized along a wider spectrum of sense remoteness of ambiguous words in Polish based on the investigation of a large collection of linguistic data.1 In the first part, we equip readers with background knowledge on different psycholinguistic views on polysemy and we introduce the basic spectrum of sense remoteness proposed in earlier literature. We also present the methodology of our research and we report the results of our quantitative study based on a large sample of sense pairs randomly extracted from plWordNet  (Słowosieć) thanks to the resources received from the CLARIN-PL Language Technology Center (the Polish section of the European research infrastructure CLARIN ERIC). We show that the most widely represented polysemy types are nested polysemy, polysemy by metaphor and polysemy by metonymy. The second part proposes an extended spectrum of sense remoteness and presents insights on different types of polysemy included in this spectrum with a special attention paid to nested polysemy. 

Słowa kluczowe: polysemy, spectrum of sense remoteness, plWordNet – Słowosieć, Polish, mental lexicon, homonymy, metonymy, metaphor, nested polysemy
References

Annaz Dagmara, Van Herwegen Jo, Thomas Michael, Fishman Roza, Karmiloff-Smith Annette, Rundblad Gabriella (2009). The comprehension of metaphor and metonymy in children with Williams syndrome. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 44, 962‒978.

Apresjan Jurij D. (1974). Semantyka leksykalna: Synonimiczne środki języka. Wrocław‒Warszawa‒Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.

Apresjan Valentina, Lopukhina Anastasiya, Zarifyan Maria (2021). Representation of different types of adjectival polysemy in the mental lexicon. Frontiers in Psychology 12. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.742064/full. Accessed December 16, 2021.

Asher Nicholas (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Asher Nicholas, Pustejovsky James (2006). A type composition logic for generative lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6(1), 1–38.

Aujla Harinder (2021). Language experience predicts semantic priming of lexical decision. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale 75(3), 235–244.

Azuma Tamiko, Van Orden Guy C. (1997). Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word’s meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language 36(4), 484–504.

Bambini Valentina, Bott Lewis, Schumacher Petra B. (2021). It is not always a matter of time: Addressing the costs of metaphor and metonymy through a speedaccuracy trade-off study. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale 75(2), 189–196.

Barnden John A. (2007). Metaphor, semantic p and context-sensitivity. In Words and Intelligence, Vol. 2: Essays in Honor of Yorick Wilks, Khurshid Ahmad, Christopher Brewster, Mark Stevenson, Yorick Wilks (eds.), 39–62. Dordrecht: Springer.

Baronchelli Andrea, Ferrer-i-Cancho Ramon, Pastor-Satorras Romualdo, Chater Nick, Christiansen Morten H. (2013). Networks in Cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(7), 348–360.

Bartsch Richard (2002). Generating polysemy: Metaphor and metonymy. In Cognitive Linguistics Research, Vol. 20: Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.), 49–74. Berlin‒New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Beretta Alan, Fiorentino Robert, Poeppel David (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research 24(1), 57–65.

Biemann Chris (2012). Structure Discovery in Natural Language. New York, NYC: Springer

Bortfeld Heather, McGlone Matthew S. (2001). The continuum of metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol 16(1/2), 75–86.

Bowdle Brian F., Gentner Dedre (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1), 193–216.

Brocher Andreas, Foraker Stephani, Koenig Jean-Pierre (2016). Processing of irregular polysemes in sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 42(11), 1798–1813.

Brocher Andreas, Koenig Jean-Pierre, Mauner Gail, Foraker Stephani (2018). About sharing and commitment: the retrieval of biased and balanced irregular polysemes. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 33, 443–466.

Bücking Sebastian, Maienborn Claudia (2019). Coercion by modification: The adaptive capacities of event-sensitive adnominal modifiers. Semantics and Pragmatics 12(9), 1–39.

Carston Robyn (2020). Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind and Language36(1), 108–133.

Coulson Seana, Matlock Teenie (2001). Metaphor and the space structuring model. Metaphor and Symbol 16(3/4), 295–316.

Croft William (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4), 335–370.

Cruse David A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Dirven René (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven, Ralf Pörings (eds. ), 75–112. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Dölling Johannes (2003). Flexibility in adverbal modification: Reinterpretation as contextual enrichment. In Modifying Adjuncts, Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), 511–552. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.

Dölling Johannes (2005). Semantische Form und pragmatische Anreicherung: Situationsausdrücke in der Äußerungsinterpretation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24(2), 159–225.

Dölling Johannes (2014). Aspectual coercion and eventuality structure. In Events,  Arguments, and Aspects: Topics in the Semantics of Verbs, Klaus Robering (ed.), 189–226. Amsterdam‒Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 

Dölling Johannes (2020). Systematic polysemy. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cecile Meier, Hotze Rullmann, Thomas E. Zimmerman (eds.). Oxford: Wiley.

Dziob Agnieszka, Piasecki Maciej, Rudnicka Ewa (2019). plWordNet 4.1–a linguistically motivated, corpus-based bilingual resource. In Proceedings of the 10th Global WordNet Conference, July 23‒27, Wrocław (Poland), Christiane Fellbaum, Piek Vossen, Ewa Rudnicka, Marek Maziarz, Maciej Piasecki (eds.), 353–362. Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej. 

Falkum Ingrid L. (2010). Systematic polysemy and the count-mass distinction. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 22, 16–40.

Falkum Ingrid L. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevancetheoretic account. PhD thesis. University College London.

Falkum Ingrid L., Vicente Agustin (2015). Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches. Lingua 157, 1‒16.

Feyaerts Kurt (2003). Refining the inheritance hypothesis: interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, Antonio Barcelona (ed.), 59–78. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Foraker Stephani, Murphy Gregory L. (2012). Polysemy in sentence comprehension: Effects of meaning dominance. Journal of Memory and Language 67(4), 407–425.

Frazier Lyn, Rayner Keith (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language 29(2), 181–200. 

Frisson Steven (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistic Compass 3, 111-127.

Frisson Steven (2015). About bound and scary books: The processing of book polysemies. Lingua 157, 17–35.

Frisson Steven, Pickering Martin J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25(6), 1366–1383.

Frisson Steven, Pickering Martin J. (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 22(4), 595–613.

Gentner Dedre, Bowdle Brian F., Wolff Phillip, Boronat Consuelo (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Dedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak, Boicho N. Kokinov (eds.), 199–253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Giulianelli Mario, Del Tredici Marco, Fernández Raquel (2020). Analysing lexical semantic change with contextualised word representations. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3960–3973.

Haber Janosh, Poesio Massimo (2020). Assessing polyseme sense similarity through co-predication acceptability and contextualised embedding distance. Proceedings of the Ninth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, 114–124.

Hino Yasushi, Lupker Stephen J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22(6), 1331–1356.

Hogeweg Lotte, Vicente Agustin (2020). On the nature of the lexicon: The status of rich lexical meanings. Journal of Linguistics 56(4), 865–891.

Hopper Paul J. et al. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1, Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Bernd Heine (eds.), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jackendoff Ray (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford‒New York: Oxford University Press.

Janus Daniel, Przepiórkowski Adam (2007). Poliqarp 1.0: Some technical aspects of a linguistic search engine for large corpora. In The Proceedings of Practical Applications in Language and Computers PALC 2005, Jacek Waliński, Krzysztof Kredens, Stanisław Góźdź-Roszkowski (eds.). Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang. Kenett Yoed N., Anaki David, Faust Miriam (2014). Investigating the structure of semantic networks in low and high creative persons. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8(407), 1‒16.

Kilgarriff Adam, Baisa Vít, Bušta Jan, Jakubíček Miloš, Kovář Vojtěch, Michelfeit Jan, Rychlý Pavel, Suchomel Vít (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1(1), 7–36.

Klepousniotou Ekaterini (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 81(1/3), 205–223.

Klepousniotou Ekaterini, Baum Shari 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.

Klepousniotou Ekaterini, Titone Debra A., Romero Carolina (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.

Klepousniotou Ekaterini, Pike Bruce G., Steinhauer Karsten, Gracco Vincent (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language 123(1), 11–21.

Klein Devorah E., Murphy Gregory L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language 45(2), 259–282.

Klein Devorah E., Murphy Gregory L. (2002). Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language 47(4), 548–570.

Klimek-Jankowska Dorota, Hwaszcz Krzysztof, Wieczorek Justyna (forthcoming). The spectrum of sense remoteness in polysemy: Bridging computational and theoretical lexicography with psycholinguistics. Studies in Polish Linguistics 17(2).

Kövecses Zoltán, Radden Günter (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 37–78.

Lakoff George, Johnson Mark (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science 4(2), 195–208.

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk Barbara (2012). Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts, Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), 139‒169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Markowski Andrzej (2012). Wykłady z leksykologii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Michl Diana (2019). Metonymies are more literal than metaphors: Evidence from ratings of German idioms. Language and Cognition 11(1), 98‒124.

Morais Ana S., Olsson Henrik, Schooler Lael J. (2013). Mapping the structure of semantic memory. Cognitive Science 37(1), 125–145.

Motter Adilson E., de Moura Alessandro P.S., Lai Ying-Cheng, Dasgupta Partha (2002). Topology of the conceptual network of language. Physical Review E 65(6). 

Murphy Elliot (2021). Linguistic representation and processing of copredication. PhD thesis. University College London.

Ortega-Andrés Marina, Vicente Agustin (2019). Polysemy and co-predication. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 1.

Ortega-Andrés Marina (2021). Interpretation of Copredicative Sentences: A Rich Underspecification Account of Polysemy. In Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy, Psychology, Vol 27, Fabrizzio Macagno, Alessandro Capone (eds.). Springer: Cham.Ortony Andrew (1979).

The role of similarity in similes and metaphors. In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), 186–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pęzik Piotr (2012). Wyszukiwarka PELCRA dla danych NKJP. In Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego Adam Przepiórkowski, Mirosław Bańko, Rafał Górski, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), 253–227. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Pickering Martin J., Frisson Steven (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(2), 556–573.

Pouscoulous Nausicaa, Dulcinati Giulio (2019). Metaphor. In The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics Chris Cummins, Napoleon Katsos (eds.), 298‒315). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pustejovsky James (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 

Pylkkänen Liina, Llinás Rodolfo, Murphy Gregory L. (2006). The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(1), 97–109.

Rayner Keith, Duffy Susan A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition 14(3), 191–201.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibánez Francisco J. (2003). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, Antonio Barcelona (ed.), 109–132. Berlin‒New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rundblad Gabriella, Annaz Dagmara (2010). Metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 28(3), 547–563.

Schlechtweg Dominik, Schulte im Walde Sabine, Eckmann Stefanie (2018). Diachronic Usage Relatedness (DURel): A Framework for the Annotation of Lexical Semantic Change. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Vol. 2, 169–174), New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Schumacher Petra. B. (2019). Metonymy. In The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics, Chris Cummins, Napoleon Katsos (eds.), 316‒330. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Siew Cynthia S.Q., Wulff Dirk U., Beckage Nicole M., Kenett Yoed N. (2019). Cognitive Network Science: A review of research on cognition through the lens of network representations, processes, and dynamics. Complexity 2019. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2019/2108423/. Accessed September 24, 2021.

Sigman Mariano, Cecchi Guillermo A. (2002). Global organization of the Wordnet lexicon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 1742–1747.

Spiess Constanze, Köpcke Klaus-Michael (eds.) (2015). Metapher und Metonymie: Theoretische, methodische und empirische Zugänge. Berlin‒Boston, MA: De Gruyter.

Spitzer Manfred (1998). The Mind within the Net: Models of Learning, Thinking and Acting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swinney David A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18(6), 645–659.

Turner Mark, Fauconnier Gilles (2003). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, Antonio Barcelona (ed.), 133–145. Berlin‒New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Valera Salvador, Ruz Alba E. (2021). Conversion in English: Homonymy, polysemy and paronymy. English Language and Linguistics 25(1), 181–204.

Van Petten Cyma, Kutas Marta (1987). Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. Journal of Memory & Language 26(2), 188–208

Vicente Agustin (2021). Approaches to co-predication: inherent polysemy and metaphysical relations. Journal of Pragmatics 182, 348–357.

Viebahn Emanuel (2020). Copredication, polysemy and context-sensitivity. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 1–37. 

Vitevitch Michael S., Goldstein Rutherford, Siew Cynthia S. Q., Castro Nichol (2014). U sing complex networks to understand the mental lexicon. Yearbook of the Poznań Linguistic Meeting 1(1), 119–138.

Zock Michael, Biemann Chris (2021). Comparison of different lexical resources with respect to the tipof-the-tongue problem. Journal of Cognitive Science, Institute for Cognitive Science, Seoul National University 21(2), 193–252.

Zortea Maxciel, Menegola Bruno, Villavicencio Aline, de Salles Jerusa F. (2014). Graph analysis of semantic word association among children, adults, and the elderly. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica 27(1), 90–99.