WORD MEANING AND RADIAL CATEGORIES

Polysemy and homonymy seem to be similar concepts, because both mean that there are
different meanings associated to the same word. However, in polysemy, those meanings are
related in some way, whereas in homonymy, there are different meanings that share the same
form in sound and/or in writing (but they don’t share the same etymology).

A polysemous word can be considered a conceptual category of distinct but related senses.
Those senses can be more prototypical (central) or less prototypical (peripheral). This way,
words can represent radial categories: a radial category is a conceptual category in which the
range of concepts are organised relative to a central or prototypical concept in which more
prototypical senses will be closer to the central prototype and less prototypical senses will be
further from the prototype (peripheral senses). Radial categories of senses are represented or
instantiated in long-term semantic memory (mental lexicon). The range of senses is
conventionalised, in other words, native speakers know the range of senses associated with that
category. Because senses are related, polysemy is considered as a semantic network the process
that connects central and peripheral senses is called chaining.

According to Lakoff, senses are structured in terms of image schemas: relatively abstract
schematic representations derived from embodied experience. TR and LM are Trajector (the
entity in the scene that is capable of motion) and Landmark (relates to the entity with respect
to which the TR moves). LMs can be V (vertically extended), X (horizontally extended) or VX
(both of them) and there can be C (contact) or NC (no contact) . this way, there can be different
schema types with different meanings related to the central (or prototype) schema. There can
also be image schema transformations, which means that one image schema can be
transformed into another according to a particular perspective: that is why E (endpoint focus)
was added to represent subjective motion within the meaning of a schema.

A different thing appears when concepts have metaphorical senses (which means that their
meaning is not literal, e.g. to have power over sb does not imply being literally over sb). In this
case, concept senses are peripheral rather than central because its metaphorical sense implies
a new meaning for that category.

There are two main problems regarding Lakoff full-specification approach.

- The first problem concerns a failure to distinguish between polysemy (distinct senses
stored in memory) and vagueness (meaning ‘filled’ by context).
- The second problem is called the ‘polysemy fallacy’: just because lexical items can
exhibit polysemy, it does not follow that all or even many distinct senses associated with
a lexical item are instances of polysemy. I think I can understand this concept, but it is
not so clear.

To better distinguish between senses (polysemy or vagueness) Tyler and Evans provided two
criteria:

1) For a sense to count as distinct, it must involve a meaning that is not purely spatial in
nature, and/or a spatial configuration holding between the TR and LM that is distinct
from the other senses conventionally associated with that preposition.
2) There must also be instances of the sense that are context-independent: instances in
which the distinct sense could not be inferred from another sense and the context in
which it occurs.
Tyler and Evans also provided four types of linguistic evidence for establishing the central sense
of a polysemous lexical item:

1) Earliest attested meaning (regarding chronology)

2) Predominance in the semantic network (the central sense will be the one most
frequently involved in or related to the other distinct senses)
3) Relations to other ‘prepositions’ (as we are dealing with prepositions, central clusters of
prepositions appear to form contrast sets that divide up various spatial dimensions)
4) Case of predicting sense extensions (the central sense should be the best predictor of
other senses in the network)

As a result, they proposed the proto-scene, which differs from Lakoff’s image schema in the
sense that the proto-scene relates to a distinct and discrete spatial sense, in which the small
circle represents the TR and the unbroken line represents the LM.

Based on principled polysemy, Tyler and Evans also proposed the illustration of radial category,
in which senses are nodes in the network and they are related ones to others, in a more closely
way or the other way around. Senses are represented in clusters, arranged with respect to an
unshaded circle. Distance from the prototype reflects intuitions about degree of centrality.
Direction of arrows represents possible paths of derivation.

To establish polysemy, Evans proposed three criteria:

1) The meaning criterion (for a sense to count as distinct, it must contain additional
meaning not apparent in any other senses associated with that first sense)
2) The concept elaboration criterion (a distinct sense will feature unique of highly distinct
patterns of concept elaboration)
3) The grammatical criterion (it must exhibit distinctive grammatical behaviour: e.g. being
transitive or intransitive)

Word meanings are always subject to context, in other words, polysemy is often a matter of
degree and exhibits gradability due to contextual influence. Cruse identified a number of ways
in which context affects the nature of polysemy:

- Usage context: subsenses. also called micro-senses, they are distinct word meanings
that appear to be motivated by usage context.the specific situational context in which
the word occurs. However, the distinct sense disappears in other contexts.
-