Cover not available

Article published In: The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 18:1 (2023) ► pp.94–119

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Regular polysemy and novel word-sense identification

ORCiD logo with link | University of Fribourg
ORCiD logo with link | University of Fribourg
ORCiD logo with link | Université Sorbonne Paris Nord | LLF, CNRS
ORCiD logo with link | Université Paris Cité | LLF, CNRS
Published online: 30 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.21002.lom
Abstract
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction in Perceptual Symbol Systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, 3581, 1177–1187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ben Hariz Ouenniche, S. (2009). Diminuer les fluctuations du sentiment néologique. Neologica, 31, 37–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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].
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brehm, L., and Alday, P. M. (2022). Contrast coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 1251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, S. W. (2008). Polysemy in the mental lexicon. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Copestake, A., and Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension. Journal of Semantics, 12(1), 15–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckart, T., Elmiger, D., Kamber, A., and Quasthoff, U. (2013). Frequency Dictionary French. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falkum, I. L., and Vicente, A. (2015). Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches. Lingua, 1571, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments : Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 291, 181–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic Underspecification in Language Processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardin, B., Lefèvre, G., Marcellesi, C., and Mortureux, M. F. (1974). A propos du « sentiment néologique ». Langages, 361, 45–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huyghe, R. (2015). Les typologies nominales : présentation. Langue Française, 1851, 5–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, P. C. D. (2014). Extension Nakagawa and Schielzeth’s R2GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 51, 944–946. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kleiber, G., and Vuillaume, M. (2011). Sémantique des odeurs. Langages, 1811, 17–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon. Brain and Language, 811, 205–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombard, A., Huyghe, R., and Gygax, P. (2021). Neological intuition in French: a study of formal novelty and lexical regularity as predictors. Lingua, 2541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lopukhina, A., Laurinavichyute, A., Lopukhin, K., and Dragoy, O. (2018). The Mental Representation of Polysemy across Word Classes. Frontiers in Psychology, 91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2006). Comprehending new words beyond their original contexts. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3(2), 2–8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S., and Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from Generalized Linear Mixed-effects Models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of Meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 109–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, W., and Kilgarriff, A. (2000). Discovering semantic regularity in lexical resources. International Journal of Lexicography, 13(4), 287–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., and Murphy, G. L. (2006). The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 18(1), 97–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sablayrolles, J. F. (2003). Le sentiment néologique. In J. F. Sablayrolles (ed.), L’Innovation lexicale (pp. 279–295). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B. (2014). Content and Context in Incremental Processing: “The Ham Sandwich” Revisited. Philosophical Studies, 168, 1, 151–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, D. (1995). Le spectre nominal : Des noms de matières aux noms d’abstractions. Louvain : Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiland-Breckle, H., and Schumacher, P. B. (2017). Artist-for-work metonymy: Type clash or underspecification? The Mental Lexicon, 12(2), 219–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yurchenko, A., Lopukhina, A., and Dragoy, O. (2020). Metaphor Is Between Metonymy and Homonymy: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials. Frontiers in Psychology, 111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Gréa, Philippe, Marie-Laurence Knittel, Rafael Marín & Florence Villoing
2025. Neological -ance nominalizations of psych predicates. Folia Linguistica DOI logo
Vicente, Agustín & Ingrid Lossius Falkum
2025. Polysemy. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Huyghe, Richard, Lucie Barque, François Delafontaine & Justine Salvadori
2024. The ambiguous nature of complex semantic types: an experimental investigation. Language and Cognition 16:4 ► pp. 1079 ff. DOI logo
Vicente, Agustín
2024. Polysemies and the one representation hypothesis. The Mental Lexicon 19:3 ► pp. 414 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue