International Journal of Lexicography, 2018, 1–18

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

doi: 10.1093/ijl/ecy018
Article

Article

STRUCTURING POLYSEMY IN ENGLISH

LEARNERS’ DICTIONARIES: A PROTOTYPE
THEORY-BASED MODEL
Huaguo Lu
College of Liberal Arts, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology
(louisluhuaguo@163.com)

Xiangqing Wei
Bilingual Dictionary Research Centre, Nanjing University

Abstract
Prototype Theory provides new insights into the structure of polysemy. In order to
apply these insights, researchers recommend that logical sense ordering be used to
represent the polysemic structure in English learners’ dictionaries. However, our
examination of entries quoted from MEDAL2 reveals that logical sense ordering and
its enhanced versions encounter difficulties in structuring polysemy: they can nei-
ther do justice to the multidimensional structure of polysemy nor clarify how one
sense extends to another. We propose drawing a semantic graph as a supplement
to the linearly-structured entry, enhancing the graph with sense link illustrations
modeled on the COBUILD defining style, and presenting both the graph and the
illustrations in a customizable way.

1. Introduction
As a mode of graded categorization, Prototype Theory has a greater explanatory power for,
and represents a new approach to, polysemy. A body of literature examines polysemy from
this perspective and comes up with insightful descriptions of different lexical items (e.g.
Lakoff 1987, Taylor 2003, Tyler and Evans 2003, Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2007,
Geeraerts 2010, Brenda 2014). Prototype theory also has considerable practical value for
polysemy teaching in EFL settings. Empirical studies show that the Prototype Theory ap-
proach contributes to foreign language learners’ acquisition of polysemy (e.g. Verspoor and
Lowie 2003, Csábi 2004, Beréndi et al. 2008, Cao 2010).
The potential of Prototype Theory in lexicographic representation of polysemy also
attracts attention from lexicographers and has become an important source of inspirations
for laying out polysemic senses in a meaningfully coherent way. A number of researchers

C 2018 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
V
2 Huaguo Lu

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

draw upon insights gained from this theory to review the layout of senses in existing dic-
tionaries or to propose new models of entry structures (van der Meer 1997, 2000, 2002,
2004, Zhao 2003: 159, Chen 2006, Chen 2011: 271, Wojciechowska 2012, Gao 2013: 11,
Ostermann 2015: 321, Xu 2015: 224, Halas 2016: 137, Jiang and Chen 2017: 135). It can
be found in these studies that logical sense ordering is generally adopted as the fundamental
principle for organizing senses of polysemic items in dictionaries. While it has an advantage
over other modes in indicating relatedness between senses, logical senses ordering suffers
from two major deficiencies: (1) it fails to do justice to the polysemic structure. When the
multidimensional structure is mapped onto the linear logical sense ordering, family resem-
blance between, and the different degrees of centrality of, senses are bound to be underre-
presented with some significant details lost, thus giving rise to the linearization problem as
noted by Geeraerts (1990: 198). (2) It fails to give a clear account of how one sense extends
to another. Logical sense ordering indicates the binary links between the core sense and the
sub-sense by attaching the latter to the former, but the hierarchical arrangement alone is in-
sufficient to clarify how senses are interrelated. (See Section 3)
This paper proposes a Prototype Theory-based model to make up the deficiencies of lin-
ear entry structures in representing the multidimensional structure of polysemy in English
learners’ dictionaries. The rest of the paper consists of four sections: Section Two looks into
polysemy from the perspective of Prototype Theory and summarizes the new insights it pro-
vides into polysemy. Section Three quotes the entries for lift from MEDAL2 to illustrate
the weaknesses of logical senses ordering. Section Four proposes a tentative model charac-
terized with a semantic graph, full-sentence illustrations of sense links and a customizable
presentation of the graph and illustrations. Section Five reflects on the proposed model and
suggests issues for future study.

2. A Prototype Theory approach to polysemic structures

2.1 A Prototype Theory approach to polysemy
Prototype Theory results from critical reflections on the Classical Approach to categories.
One basic assumption concerning this approach is that any entity which exhibits all the
defining features of a category is a full member of that category; any entity which does not
exhibit all the defining features is not a member. In other words, a category lacks internal
structure and all its members have equal status. (Taylor 2003: 21) However, counterexam-
ples are not difficult to find. Having examined different kinds of games, Wittgenstein
(1978: 31–33) notes that the category is not structured in terms of a set of shared criterial
features, but rather by an overlapping and crisscrossing network of similarities, which he
characterizes as family resemblance. Further insights were gained from a series of experi-
ments by Rosch (1973, 1975), who finds that such natural categories as furniture and bird
acquire their denotational range, not through the setting of category boundaries, but by
generalization from focal (i.e. prototypical) exemplars. These findings, among others, lead
to the formulation of Prototype Theory.
Geeraerts (1989) proposes the following features as typical of prototypical concepts:

a. Prototypical categories exhibit degrees of typicality; not every member is equally repre-
sentative for a category.
b. Prototypical categories are blurred at the edges.
Structuring Polysemy in English Learner’s Dictionaries 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

c. Prototypical categories cannot be defined by means of a single set of criterial (necessary
and sufficient) attributes.
d. Prototypical categories exhibit a family resemblance structure, or more generally, their
semantic structure takes the form of a radial set of clustered and overlapping readings.

These features are referred to as prototype effects. They constitute the basic tenets of
Prototype Theory.
Prototype effects characterize not only single meanings, but also polysemic lexical items:
First, one meaning may directly or indirectly lie at the basis of other meanings, hence carry-
ing more structural weight and functioning as the prototype (feature a). Second, it is often
implausible to divide the meanings of a polysemic item to the extent that each is independ-
ent from the others (feature b). Third, the polysemic lexical item as a whole cannot be ad-
equately described by a single definition (feature c). Fourth, all meanings of the lexical
items are structured into radial sets and interrelated through family resemblance (feature
d). (See Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2007: 147)

2.2 The insights from the Prototype Theory approach

Psycholinguists disagree as to the way polysemic senses are represented and processed in
the mental lexicon. Views on the representation of polysemy have been divided into two
camps: the sense enumeration theory and the one-representation theory. The former holds
that each sense of a polysemic expression is represented individually in the lexicon. The lat-
ter treats the senses of a polysemic lexical item as deriving from a single meaning represen-
tation (Falkum and Benito 2015). Both camps receive support from empirical studies (e.g.
Klein and Murphy 2001, Foraker and Murphy 2012 for the former; Klepousniotou et al.
2008, Frisson 2015 for the latter).
Regarded as a radical version of a sense enumeration lexicon (Vicente and Falkum
2017), the Prototype Theory approach lends insights about the representation of poly-
semy in dictionaries. Although it favors the sense enumeration representation, ‘lexicog-
raphy has certainly never denied the existence of links between the various readings of a
lexical item’ (Geeraerts 2001: 7). The Prototype Theory approach enumerates all the
senses of the polysemic lexical item, on the one hand, and takes full account of their
interrelations, one the other. In addition to ideas from the philosophy of language on
family resemblance and findings from psychological research on categorization, it also
accommodates other cognitive linguistic theories (e.g. conceptual metaphor and image
schema). Therefore, it presents a broader and clearer view of polysemy. Since this paper
focuses on the lexicographic representation of the polysemic structure, we will discuss
the following three aspects:

1. It expands polysemy to senses associated with different parts of speech. It is traditional-

ly held that the polysemic senses of a word must belong to the same syntactic category
(Cuyckens and Zawada 2001: xiii). Syntactic constancy was used as a criterion to dis-
tinguish polysemy from homonymy: if different senses are associated with different
word classes, then semanticists or lexicographers are dealing with cases of homonymy
i.e. different lexical items. In contrast, Cognitive Linguists have relaxed the requirement
that the senses of a polysemic item are associated with a single syntactic category
(Taylor 2003: 108) and extended the notion of polysemy to a morphological phenom-
enon (in the form of conversion or zero-derivation) (Cuyckens and Zawada 2001: xiv).
4 Huaguo Lu

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

Conversion is re-categorized as a process in which a salient participant (e.g. object,
goal, instrument or manner) is singled out as the ‘metonymic focus’ to designate the
whole event (Dirven 1999: 280, Dirven and Verspoor 2004:64) and vice versa
(Schönefeld 2005:149). Zero-derivatives should be understood ‘as a phenomenon of se-
mantic extension of a language’s lexicon’ (ibid: 150), where ‘an expression is used to
cover an additional sense, thus becoming polysemous’ (ibid: 146). The extended view of
polysemy has become a norm in Cognitive Semantics.
2. It presents a global picture of the polysemic structure with richer details. According to
Darmesteter (1886: 76), the processes of semantic development could be characterized as
radiation (i.e. a word accumulates meanings around a core) or concatenation (i.e. a word
develops a polysemic chain of meanings). The Prototype Theory approach combines these
two modes in its account of the polysemic structure (see Lakoff 1987, Taylor 2003). It
looks beyond the individual binary links between source meanings and derived meanings
and presents a holistic picture with more details: the structure of polysemy in many cases
cannot be captured by either radiation or concatenation alone. It is multidimensional with
one pattern embedded into the other at different levels since each sense is likely to extend
further in the radial or chain mode. In addition, the structure of polysemy is not just the
sum of equally important individual shifts. It consists of meanings of different structural
weights (e.g. the prototypical sense playing a cohesive role and the peripheral senses clus-
tered around it) that are held together by a structural principle (i.e. the family resemblance
that links senses directly and indirectly) (Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2007: 148).
3. It elevates the mechanisms for semantic extensions from a rhetorical level to a cognitive
one. Among various tropes referring to lexical and semantic phenomena, metaphor and
metonymy are two particularly important mechanisms for semantic evolution (see
Nerlich 1992). The afore-mentioned radiation and concatenation result from the use of
these two figures of speech (Darmesteter 1886: 76). Cognitive semanticists agree that
metaphor and metonymy are two basic mechanisms for semantic extension (Verspoor
2008: 82) but regard them as conceptual phenomenon rather than merely rhetorical
devices (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Metaphor and metonymy are systematic. They come
in patterns (i.e. conceptual metaphor and conceptual metonymy) that go beyond the in-
dividual lexical item. Semantic extensions might be more comprehensible if the systemat-
icity behind the lexical phenomena is taken into account. Cognitive semanticists also
hold that both mechanisms are grounded in experience. They are based on human bodily
and spatial experience and on cultural and cognitive models (Barcelona 2003: 225), so
they cannot be properly explained without drawing on their experiential basis.

The Prototype Theory approach to polysemy has several implications for learners’ dic-
tionaries: First, senses associated with different parts of speech need not be treated in differ-
ent entries and the sense relations between them should be properly represented in
dictionaries. Second, senses should be presented in such a way that users have a chance to
see the overall structure of a polysemic item as well as the structural weights of its senses.
Third, dictionaries should not only make explicit the mechanisms for semantic extensions
from one sense to another, but also clarify them in terms of their systematicity (in the case
of conceptual metaphor) and experiential basis. In the next section, we will examine the
entries for lift quoted from MEDAL2 to evaluate to what extent these implications are
reflected in English learners’ dictionaries by logical sense ordering.
Structuring Polysemy in English Learner’s Dictionaries 5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

3. The deficiencies of (enhanced) logical sense ordering
3.1 Entries quoted from MEDAL2
Our decision to choose MEDAL2 is based on the following two facts: First, MEDAL2 classi-
fies senses of some polysemic items into core senses and sub-senses and arranges them hier-
archically. Both features are typical of logical sense ordering. Second, it evinces much greater
interest in Cognitive Linguistics than other competitors. Conscious application of cognitive
linguistic insights is not only demonstrated by the ‘Metaphor Box’ feature that introduces con-
ceptual metaphor (Moon 2004, Yang and Xiangqing Wei 2016), but also observed in its
ordering of metaphorical and metonymic senses (Wojciechowska 2012: 98). When we repro-
duce the entries, we will leave out such information as pronunciations, illustrative sentences,
collocates and phrases. Menus will be discussed and thesauri mentioned in the next section, so
these two categories of information will not appear in the quoted entries. Given that our focus
is on the sense arrangement, we will retain the original layout of the entries with the subsenses
indented in relation to the core senses. MEDAL2 has given each sense a(n) (alpha)numeric
code, but for the convenience of reference, we will renumber all the senses consecutively.
lift 1 VERB

1. to move something to a higher position (1)

1a. to take something in your hands and move it from one place to another (2)
1b. to move to a higher position (3)
1c. to move your head or eyes upwards so that you can look at something (4)
1d. to move a part of your body to a higher position (5)
2. to improve the situation that someone or something is in (6)
3. often passive to officially end a rule or law that stopped someone from doing some-
thing (7)
4. if a bad mood or bad feeling lifts, you start to feel happier (8)
4a. to make someone feel happier (9)
4b. if a weight or burden lifts or is lifted from you, you stop worrying about something
and feel happier (10)
5. if something such as cloud or fog lifts, the weather improves and you can see clearly
again (11)
6. informal to steal something (12)
6a. if you lift someone else’ s words or ideas, you use them and pretend that they are
yours (13)
7. to cause the amount or level of something to increase (14)
8. to dig vegetables or other plants out of the ground (15)
9. if your voice lifts or you lift it, you start to talk more loudly (16)
10. to airlift something or someone (17)

lift 2 NOUN

1. an occasion when someone takes you somewhere in their car. (18)

2. BRITISH a machine that carries people up or down between different levels of a tall
building. AMERICAN elevator (19)
3. a movement in which something is lifted (20)
4. singular if something gives you a lift or you get a lift from it , it makes you feel happier (21)
5. science the force that makes an aircraft leave the ground and stay in the air (22)
6 Huaguo Lu

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

3.2 The deficiencies of logical sense ordering
The above entries for lift consist of twenty-two senses. They are arranged at three levels,
i.e. the top level for headwords, the central level for core senses, and the subordinate level
for subsenses. The following observations can be made about the quoted entries:

1. The verb lift and the noun lift are treated as homonyms, each constituting an in-
dividual, superscript-numbered headword (i.e. lift 1 and lift 2). The twenty-two
senses of lift are classified into two categories according to the parts of speech
they are associated with and grouped under the headwords respectively. As a re-
sult, conceptually linked senses are separated from each other. For instance, (22)
is metonymically related to (i.e. a specific case of) (1), but they are set far apart
by the twenty senses that come in between them (not counting illustrative senten-
ces, collocations and other usage information that address the corresponding
senses). Because of the spatial distance, users are likely to ignore the possibility of
establishing relationship between senses across entries.
2. In some cases, senses at the same level of the hierarchy are not of the same im-
portance, i.e. some are more basic than others. For example, (1), (6), (7), (8),
(11), (12), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21) and (22) are all entered as
core senses and placed at the central level, but they are not of equal structural
weight: (1) lies at the basis of (6), (7), (14), (15), (19), (20) and (22). Altogether
the latter seven senses ray out from (1) to form a pattern of radiation. (14) and
(16) are also classified as core senses, hence placed at the same level as (1).
However, a close inspection reveals that (1) extends to (14), which in turn extends
to (16). They form a pattern of catenation, with each later link building on the
previous one in the chain. With some rays of senses constituting semantic chains
in their own right, the overall radial structure of lift displays much more subtlety
than the hierarchical arrangement of the quoted entries can express.
3. No device is designed to show that senses are related with each other, except in
the case of core senses and subsenses. As shown above, neither relations between
senses at the same level (e.g. (1) and (5)) nor those between senses across entries
(e.g. (5) and (17)) are displayed. The layout of the quoted entries is only capable
of indicating semantic connectedness between core senses and subsenses through
the hierarchical arrangement of them. For example, attaching the subsense (10) to
core sense (8) is a sign of relatedness between these two senses. However, just be-
cause users are informed that two senses are related, it does not follow that they
are able to see how the link holds between them. For instance, (9) is made access-
ible by (1) to users only when users understand how the conceptual metaphor
HAPPY IS UP operates in this context. This mechanism is apparently not some-
thing that average users can make sense of on their own.

As shown by the quoted entries, the verb senses and the noun senses are treated
in separate entries, only binary links between core senses and subsenses are indicated,
and cognitive mechanisms fail to play a bigger role in the exploration of semantic
extensions. When used to represent the multidimensional structure of polysemy, logic-
al sense ordering demonstrates apparent inadequacies and encounters the afore-
mentioned linearization problem.
Structuring Polysemy in English Learner’s Dictionaries 7

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

3.3 Comments on the remedies for logical sense ordering
It is unfair to say advocates of logical sense ordering are not aware of the above limitations.
In fact, some researchers have suggested the following remedies to overcome the
inadequacies:

1. To cross-reference senses that are scattered because of the hierarchical arrangement of

logical sense ordering. Cross-references are widely used to establish various relationship
between different places in dictionaries. They are undoubtedly applicable to sense links
obscured by logical sense ordering: if one sense extends to another and they are inter-
rupted by other senses in the arrangement, a cross-reference can be designed to indicate
the link between them. For instance, Geeraerts (1990: 208) proposes indicating the
overlapping between the different groups of meanings by using cross-references to other
parts of the hierarchical structure. Gao (2008) suggests cross-referencing senses associ-
ated with different parts of speech to remind users of their interrelatedness. However,
this method may work for binary links, but not in complex cases. If the scattered senses
form a pattern of radiation (e.g. (1), (6), (7), (14), (15), (19), (20) and (22)) or concaten-
ation (e.g. (1), (3), (11) and (8)), a cluster or chain of cross-references are required to
represent the abundant sense relations they contain. This may lead to an increase in in-
formation cost (Nielsen 2008:184). Even worse is the probability for overused cross-
references to be ignored by users (Luo and Sheng 2006, Wei et al. 2014: 111).
2. To introduce more levels into the tiered structure of logical sense ordering by combining
alphanumerical codes with indentation. Our analysis of lift has found that the two-level
arrangement of senses is not elaborate enough to represent the depth of sense relations
contained in the semantic structure. The defect is particularly prominent in the pattern
of concatenation (e.g. (1), (3), (11), and (8)), where each node is rendered as one level in
the hierarchy of logical sense ordering. It appears that the defect can be remedied by
adding more levels to the hierarchy. Halas (2016: 137) advocates marking core senses,
subsenses, sub-subsenses etc. with hierarchical alphanumeric codes (e.g. a.1, a.1.1,
a.1.1, etc.) and indenting slightly the paragraph of each sense in relation to that of its
direct superordinate sense. Theoretically, the model can accommodate as many levels as
the depth of sense relations requires. However, the number of levels is usually very lim-
ited in lexicographical practice. Even large scholarly dictionaries (e.g. OED) feature
four levels of organization at most (Fraser 2008: 72), with the first level of division
reserved for parts of speech. The reasons might be that too many levels may result in a
complex layout of entries and that users risk losing track of where they are in the hier-
archical structure.
3. To rewrite definitions so that they make explicit how subsenses are linked to core
senses. Cross-reference and hierarchical arrangement indicate that the senses are con-
nected but leave users to figure out how one extends to another. Having noticed the
limitation, lexicographers attempt to demonstrate the mechanisms for semantic exten-
sions by rewriting definitions. Some researchers suggest that core definitions be used to
‘cover in a general way all derived subsense definitions’ (van der Meer 2000; Smirnova
2016). Halas (2016: 136) advocates incorporating in the definition of a subsense the
dominant semantic component it shares with the superordinate sense. These defining
strategies are sometimes successful in clarifying links between core senses and subsenses,
but face difficulties where conceptual metaphor functions as the mechanism. The sug-
gested solution is to use phrases or labels such as resemble (Halas 2016: 137), as if (van
8 Huaguo Lu

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

der Meer 2000: 426), metaphorized into (Zhao 2003:186) and metaphoric extensions
or metonymic extensions (Smirnova 2016) in definitions. However, this kind of meta-
language is not clear enough for users to see how the mechanism works. For example,
Halas (2016: 137) defines one subsense of drop as ‘to stop doing something (which
resembles making an object fall to the ground)’. The similarity between the definition of
the subsense and that of the core sense (i.e. to make something fall vertically), indicated
but unexplained, is probably beyond average users.

Our review of the entries for lift in MEDAL2 reveals that logical sense ordering cannot
represent the multidimensional structure of polysemy, nor can it make explicit the mechan-
ism for semantic extensions between senses. The remedies lessen the inherent inadequacies
of logical sense ordering rather than solve them. If the crux of the linearization problem lies
in the linearity of the microstructure of dictionaries, the difficulties confronting logical
sense ordering and its enhanced versions seem to suggest that the advocates of this sense
ordering principle might be on the wrong track. Section Four will investigate why the logic-
al sense ordering is adopted despite the foregoing inadequacies and how the linearization
problem can be solved by following a different line of presentation.

4. An illustrated semantic graph and its envisaged

presentation
4.1 Users’ needs regarding polysemic items
Users’ needs are important factors in designing dictionaries. They can be classified into glo-
bal information needs and local (or punctual: see Tarp 2010:41 for this distinction) infor-
mation in the case of polysemy. The former arises when users have problems with the
meaning of a word in context and wish to look it up in dictionaries. Users might need to
scan part of the entry for a specific sense, but they do not care much about the senses that
they pass and probably stop after they find the sense that fits in the context (Wei et al.
2014:107). It is, therefore, advisable for learners’ dictionaries to divide the meaning of a
polysemic item into discrete senses and arrange them as accessibly as possible. The latter
are felt by users ‘wishing to read a whole entry for a word, with a view to studying all the
meanings and adding to his or her lexical knowledge’ (Scholfield 1999: 31). They cover the
senses of a word, the interrelations between, and the structure formed of, these senses.
Accordingly, the dictionary entry should be represented ‘as a coherent text’, rather than ‘as
a loose amalgamation of independent senses’ (Lew 2013: 293). The discrepancies in presen-
tation make it rather difficult to ‘kill two birds with one stone’.
However, MEDAL2 attempts to address both types of needs by means of a compromise
layout of senses. Considering that entries are mostly used for browsing, it gives priority to
the local information needs and adopts the following principles of presentation: first and
foremost, it divides senses into different sections according to parts of speech. The grounds
for this decision are that ‘the user may very well be able to identify the word class of an
otherwise unknown word’ (Atkins and Rundell 2008: 193) and will locate the target section
quickly with the help of a word class-based division of senses. MEDAL2 also arranges
senses belonging to the same level in decreasing order of frequency within each section
(Prcic 2004: 306). This principle is based on the widely held belief that ‘if more frequent
meanings are given first, dictionary-users will be saved time because they will not have to
Structuring Polysemy in English Learner’s Dictionaries 9

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

read through less frequent senses before coming to the desired one’ (Gold 1986: 44). Both
features atomize meanings to facilitate search for individual senses, but they frustrate the
efforts to establish direct and indirect relations between senses that form a multidimension-
al structure. As a result, the compilers of MEDAL2 are allowed little room to deal with the
global information needs: logical sense ordering is used to indicate binary links between
core senses and subsenses and their relative importance to each other.

4.2 Clues contained in menus of MEDAL2

Interestingly, menus in MEDAL2, which are primarily designed for local information
needs, point us in the right direction to solve the fragmentation brought about by
atomized presentation. In addition to word class-based division and frequency order-
ing of senses, menus are also used in highly polysemic entries to further satisfy users’
local information needs. Menus consist of guiding elements (i.e. words or short
phrases that distinguish the meanings of longer entries) gathered in joint blocks at the
top of entries. On the one hand, they ‘act as a visual index to help the user access
the meaning they want as quickly as possible’ (LDOCE3, xi) and are capable of
reducing the time spent on browsing senses in longer entries, though they are less effi-
cient than signposts (i.e. individual guiding elements that head the respective senses)
(see Chen and Wan 2006, Lew 2010, Nesi and Tan 2011, Tono 2011, Ptasznik and
Lew 2014). On the other hand, they can fulfill the global information needs to some
extent. According to Yamada (2013: 200), ‘with the information all at the top of the
entry, it is easier to see the full picture’. Tian (2009: 109) also points out that menus
offer users a glimpse into all the meanings of the headwords. The extra bonus of
menus can be attributed to the fact that sense guiding elements are gathered in the
entry-initial position, creating a degree of integration that matters to the global infor-
mation needs. This provides us with an important clue: we might as well look be-
yond the logical sense ordering and its enhanced versions for a solution to the
linearization problem.
Drawing on the inspiration from menus, we propose using a semantic graph to supple-
ment the linear structure of entries. Although menus function as a semantic sketch, they
show a linear layout as entries do and suffer from the foregoing linearization problem.1
According to Geeraerts (1990: 199), ‘the necessity to list meanings in a linear way is
imposed by the basic linear structure of written text’. It follows that ‘. . .graphic representa-
tions. . .might circumvent the greater part of the difficulties arising from the linearization
problem’ (ibid). In accordance with this view, we suggest substituting a semantic graph for
the menu to supplement the linear structure of entries. This brings the following benefits:
First, like menus, the semantic graph gathers all sense guiding elements, irrespective of their
word classes, in entry-initial positions and allows a quick assessment of the range of mean-
ings in a longer entry. It can fulfill the global information needs the way menus do. Second,
the semantic graph is not constrained by the linearization problems and has an advantage
in displaying the multidimensional structure of polysemic items. It satisfies the global infor-
mation needs further than menus. Third, the semantic graph is devoted to representing the
clustering and overlapping between meanings and makes it possible to lay out senses in
such a way that they fulfill the local information needs to the maximum. In other words,
the word class-based division, a complete frequency ordering of senses and signposts are
implemented whereas logical sense ordering is no longer needed.
10 Huaguo Lu

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

4.3 A semantic graph for lift
Next, we create a semantic graph based on senses listed in the quoted entries for lift. This
involves identifying the prototypical sense and the derivational paths of other senses. As for
the prototypical sense, Evans (2005: 44) proposes the following four criteria: a. historically
earliest attested meaning; b. predominance in the semantic network in the sense of type fre-
quency; c. predictability regarding other senses; d. a sense which relates to lived human ex-
perience. Applying the four criteria, we examined the twenty-two senses and found that (1) is
the prototypical sense. The reasons are as follows: First, (1) is the historically earliest attested
meaning, which OED2 traces back to Cursor Mundi, a religious poem written around 1300
A.D. Second, our investigation finds that the core meaning component (i.e. raise) of sense (1)
features in more than half of the twenty-two senses, which is a clear sign of its predominance
in the semantic network. Third, the twenty-one senses derive from (1) and some of them ex-
tend to more peripheral senses by means of metaphor or metonymy; therefore, (1) makes
other senses accessible to varying degrees, not vice versa. Fourth, (1) designates a repeated
perceptible act in everyday life and closely relates to human experience.
The application of the second and third criteria also enables us to trace the derivational
path of the non-prototypical senses from the prototypical one. For instance, our analysis
demonstrates that both (14) and (16) relate to the core meaning component (i.e. raise) of
(1) and are semantic extensions from the prototype by means of the conceptual metaphor
MORE IS UP. We also find (16) is roughly a specialization of sense (14), i.e. a specific case
of increase. Based on these findings, we conclude that (16) is closer to (14) than to (1) and
delineate the derivational path as follows: (1) extends to (14) metaphorically, which in turn
extends to (16) metonymically. After pinning down the prototypical sense and the paths
that radiate out from it, we are able to draw the following semantic graph (Figure 1):
The semantic network for lift displays a radial structure, with each sense functioning as
a node and represented by a short definition. (1) is located in the center as the prototype.

Figure 1. The Semantic graph for lift (M¼ metaphor; ME¼metonymy).

Structuring Polysemy in English Learner’s Dictionaries 11

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

Other senses are clustered around it and, depending on their distances from the center (i.e.
the number of nodes their paths pass through), arranged into three levels: (2), (5), (3), (9),
(14), (7), (6), (10), (15), (22), (20) and (19) constitute the first level, (12), (17), (18), (4),
(11), (21) and (16) the second level, and (13) and (18) the third level. The mechanisms that
govern semantic extensions are roughly grouped into metaphor and metonymy2, designated
by M and ME respectively in the graph.

4.4 Full-Sentence illustrations of sense links

The links between senses have to be explained in plain language so that the semantic graph
can be really meaningful to language learners. The derivational paths between senses and
their directions are marked by arrows and the mechanisms regulating semantic extensions
are indicated using abbreviations. However, it is still challenging for inexpert users to make
sense of these symbols, considering that most of them are not equipped with theoretical
knowledge of linguistics. The Full-Sentence definitions (FSDs) initiated in the Collins
COBUILD dictionary provide an important inspiration. They have advantages over the
conventional defining style, two of which are particularly relevant: (1) they read like ‘nor-
mal’ prose, ‘of the kind that a teacher might use when explaining the meaning of a word or
expression in the classroom’ (Hanks 1985: 119). (2) They are well adapted for conveying
various extralinguistic information and, more importantly, allow for additional informa-
tion to be added in the right-hand part (Rundell 2006: 324, Atkins and Rundell 2008: 441).
Therefore, we suggest illustrating sense relations by modelling the formulation on FSDs.
Sense relations at the first level:

(1)-(2) If you lift a suitcase, you carry it to a different place after you raise it to a higher position
(i.e. off the ground).
(1)-(3) If a balloon lifts, it goes up when hot air raises it to a higher position.
(1)-(5) If you lift your leg, you raise it to a higher position.
(1)-(6) If you lift someone out of poverty, you get them out of poverty as if you raised them to a
higher position so that they are above the bad situation and not influenced by it.
(1)-(7) If a rule is lifted, it is officially ended as if it were raised to higher position so that it will
be above you and not prevent you from doing something.
(1)-(9) If good news lifts you or your spirits, it encourages or cheers you as if it raised you or
your spirit to a higher level. (Life experience: when you are happy and cheerful, you usually take
an upright posture and look higher than when you are sad and spiritless.)
(1)-(10) If a burden lifts or is lifted from you, it is removed from you as if it were raised to a
higher position so that it is above you and stops weighing on you.
(1)-(14) If an amount or a level is lifted, it is increased as if the corresponding number were
raised to a higher level on a scale.
(1)-(15) If you lift potatoes, you dig them up by raising them to a higher position than when
they are in the ground.
(1)-(19) A lift is a device in a building that can raise a person to a higher position (i.e. a higher
floor).
(1)-(20) A lift is an act of raising something to a higher level.
(1)-(22) Lift is the force that raises something off the ground and keeps it in a higher position.

Sense relations at the second level:

(2)-(12) If someone lifts something, they steal it by taking it to a different place without permis-
sion and without intending to return it.
12 Huaguo Lu

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

(2)-(17) If a government lifts people or goods, it transports them by air in order to carry them to
a different place.
(2)-(18) If you give someone a lift, you give them a free ride to carry them to a different place.
(3)-(11) If a cloud or fog lifts, it finally disappears after it goes up.
(5)-(4) If you lift your head, you direct it upward to look at something by raising it.
(9)-(21) If good news gives you a lift, it gives you a feeling that encourages or cheers you up.
(14)-(16) If you lift your voice or your voice lifts, you send it up loudly by increasing its volume.

Sense relations at the third level:

(11)-(8) If a bad feeling lifts, it disappears like a rising cloud or fog.

(12)-(13) If someone lifts other people’s ideas, they make dishonest use of the ideas as if they
stole them.

The sense link illustrations are all formulated in full sentences. They come in two formats
(i.e. the if format and the is format, for want of better labels) and each consists of two parts
(i.e. a left-hand part and a right-hand part). The if format is used when the sense in question
is associated with verbs or is typically used in a verbal phrase. The left-hand part contextual-
izes the headword. The right-hand part explains the sense in question by means of its short
definition and, in most cases, incorporates that of its direct superordinate sense in an adver-
bial attached to it. The is format is similar to the conventional defining style and is adopted
in the remaining cases. The left-hand part functions as the subject. The right-hand part is the
predicative, which consists of the genus of the sense in question and a modifier that incorpo-
rates the short definition of the direct superordinate sense. As far as both formats are con-
cerned, the left-hand part introduces the headword and functions as the topic; the right-hand
part is the comment, which relates two vertically adjacent senses in the hierarchy.
The illustrations clarify sense links without using linguistic jargon. Links between senses
can be classified into two broad categories, i.e. metonymic and metaphoric. If a sense link is
metonymic, the subordinate sense highlights one aspect of the direct superordinate sense or the
former is a specific case of the latter. The link can be made accessible by treating the short def-
inition of the superordinate sense as an adverbial or a modifier and attaching it to that of the
subordinate sense. In contrast, establishing metaphoric links often requires more lexical devi-
ces. If the similarity between senses is straightforward, the preposition like suffices to clarify it
(as in (11) and (8)). In most cases, the similarity needs further elaboration, so an as-if clause is
used to visualize a situation, by means of which the short definitions of both senses can be
related. As far as the link (1)-(9) is concerned, an as-if clause alone is not helpful enough to
clarify the link between meaning components raise and cheer. As a last resort, life experience is
invoked to relate the upright posture to happy emotions (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 15).
Cognitive mechanisms for semantic extension underlie the analysis and description of the poly-
semic structure, but we refrain from using such technical terms as metonymy, HAPPY IS UP,
and experiential basis and endeavor to make the illustrations friendlier to users.

4.5 A customizable presentation

When the semantic graph and the sense link illustrations are ready, they will be presented
to users. The ‘show more/less’ feature of MEDAL2 allows users to browse a longer or
shorter list of synonyms in the thesaurus section. This encourages us to present the semantic
graph and the illustrations in a similar manner. Lexicographers have the responsibility to
work out all the details of the semantic graph, including how senses are interrelated, but it
Structuring Polysemy in English Learner’s Dictionaries 13

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

is neither possible nor necessary to display both categories of information in their entirety.
We would explore this problem with the help of two concepts proposed by Lew (2011), i.e.
presentation space and perceptual space. The former refers to how much can be presented
(displayed, visualized) at a given time to the dictionary user; the latter reflects the dictionary
user’s capacity to perceive and process lexicographic data. In the case of extremely poly-
semic items, the nodes and paths are so numerous that they cannot be graphically repre-
sented in the semantic network. Even if they are manageable in quantity, the high density of
information may go beyond users’ processing capacity.
Users should be given the final say on which part of the information will be displayed in
the dictionary because their global information needs might vary in breadth and depth.
Some might be interested in the entire semantic network and go to dictionary with a view
to studying all the senses of a lexical item. Others may wish to focus on part of it only; their
dictionary search begins with a certain sense in mind and extends to closely related ones
only. Likewise, not all users need to refer to every illustration. As Taylor (2003: 106) points
out, ‘relatedness of meaning is both a gradient and a subjective notion’. The short defini-
tions of (1) and (22) share the core meaning component raise, so the link between them is
so obvious that no illustration is needed to clarify it. In contrast, (1) and (14) are connected
through the intermediary of the conceptual metaphor HAPPY IS UP. While most users feel
that link (1)-(14) is not immediately accessible and that an illustration is necessary, some
may simply take it for granted. For example, the Chinese equivalent for lift, (tı́), happens
to display a similar pattern of semantic extension: its basic ‘raise’ sense extends to a ‘cheer’
one (as exemplified by the phrase (tı́ shén, which literally means lift spirits)) (CCD7,
1284). Chinese learners of English may accept link (1)-(14) as real and would not bother to
seek an explanation for it.
Thanks to the electronic medium, users are able to access dictionary information with
more flexibility. In order to meet their personalized global information needs, we propose
presenting the afore-mentioned information in a customizable way. The envisaged presen-
tation can be characterized as follows: short definitions and their corresponding full defini-
tions are hyperlinked to allow navigation between the entry and the semantic graph. When
users click on a prototypical sense in the entry, a cluster of senses appear on the top of the
entry, in which the first-level senses radiate out from the prototype. When they click on a
non-prototypical sense in the entry, a derivational path from the prototype to the men-
tioned sense is displayed in the same position. In either case, users can choose to hide the
sense cluster and the derivational path with another click or to go on exploring the semantic
network by clicking on a node to find out the subordinate senses at the next level. Likewise,
a sense link illustration is displayed in a nearby pop-up box or hidden from users with a
click on the arrow between two short definitions.

5. Concluding remarks
Nearly three decades ago, Geeraerts (1990: 199) advocated using graphic representations
to circumvent the linearization problem, but worried that incorporating figures would
greatly enhance the printing space and lead to an increase in costs. Nowadays, storage
space is virtually unrestricted in electronic dictionaries. The fact that no such graphic repre-
sentation is used in electronic dictionaries is largely due to ‘the force of lexicographical
14 Huaguo Lu

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

tradition’ (ibid: 200). Logical sense ordering remains the only device for describing the
polysemic structure in practical lexicography.
Inspired by Geeraerts’s suggestion, we quoted the entries for lift from MEDAL2 and exam-
ined logical sense ordering as well as its enhanced versions based on the quoted entries. We find
that they suffer from two major deficiencies: (1) they fail to solve the linearization problem and
(2) fail to give an account of how one sense extends to another. As a reaction against the defi-
ciencies, we suggest drawing a semantic graph for the polysemic item lift to supplement the lin-
ear entry structure, enhancing the graph with full-sentence sense link illustrations modeled on
the COBUILD defining style, and presenting both the graph and illustrations in a customizable
way. We hope that the model could reduce the difficulties in applying Prototype Theory to prac-
tical lexicography and serve users’ global information needs better.
However, the model needs to be tried on more lexical items. Prepositions are undoubt-
edly the worthiest of such experiments since they are notoriously difficult for learners but
insufficiently treated in monolingual learners’ dictionaries (Lindstromberg 2001: 89-94).
Prepositional polysemy often results from abstract mechanisms such as profile shifts and
image schema transformations. This poses challenges to the lexicographical treatment of
sense links: are full-sentence illustrations useful enough to clarify connectedness between
the multiple senses of prepositions? If we need pictorial illustrations indeed, is it possible to
substitute pictures for schematic representations and to avoid technical terms (e.g. land-
mark, trajectory and path)? All these issues deserve attention in future studies.
Serious empirical research is also needed to examine the effectiveness of the proposed
model. Empirical studies in EFL settings have found that providing a core sense results in
better guessing and long-term retention of figurative senses of polysemic words (Verspoor
and Lowie 2003, Zhao 2005) and that explicating the motivations for the senses of poly-
semic words promotes better learner performance (Csábi 2004, Beréndi et al. 2008). These
studies lend support to the proposed model, but none of them is aimed at investigating the
usefulness of learners’ dictionaries. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct rigorous empirical
research to discover to what extent the model is effective in promoting dictionary users’
learning of polysemic senses.

Notes
1. The editor kindly reminded me that graphic menus had been used in some English-
Japanese dictionaries (e.g. Kenkyusha’s Lighthouse English-Japanese Dictionary, see
Nakao 1989: 299-230 ).
2. Metonymy here is used in its broadest sense, encompassing the traditional patterns
such as synecdoche, specialization and generalization (Radden and Kövecses 1999: 34,
Geeraerts 2010: 31) as well as profile shifts and image-schema transformations pro-
posed by cognitive semanticists (Gries 2015: 474).

References

A. Dictionaries
Jiang, Lansheng, Jingrong Tan, and Rong Chen. (eds.) 2016. The Contemporary Chinese
Dictionary (Seventh Edition). Beijing: The Commercial Press. (CCD7)
Structuring Polysemy in English Learner’s Dictionaries 15

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

Rundell., M. (ed.) 2007. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners Online. (Second
Edition). Oxford: Macmillan Education. (MEDAL2).
Simpson, J.A. and E.S.C Weiner. (eds.) 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary (Second edition).
Oxford: Clarendon Press. (OED2)
Summers, D. (ed.). 1995. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (Third edition). Harlow:
Longman. (LDOCE3)
Takebayashi, S and Y. Kojima (eds.) 1984. Kenkyusha’s Lighthouse English-Japanese Dictionary
(Revised edition). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

B. Other literature
Atkins, B. S., and M. Rundell. 2008. The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Barcelona, A. 2003. ‘Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics.’ In Cuyckens, H., T. Berg, R. Dirven,
and K. U. Panther (eds.). Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden. (Vol.
243.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 223–255.
Beréndi, M., S. Csábi, and Z. Kövecses. 2008. ‘Using Conceptual Metaphors and Metonymies in
Vocabulary Teaching.’ In F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg. (eds.). Cognitive Linguistic
Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–100
Brenda, M. 2014. The Cognitive Perspective on the Polysemy of the English Spatial Preposition
Over. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cao, Qiaozhen. 2010. ‘An Experimental Study of Applying Prototype Theory to Classroom
Polysemy Teaching.’ Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal 135. 2: 37–44.
Chen, Wei. 2011. Constructing a Prototype Definition Model. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation
Publishing House.
Chen, Xiaowen and Xiaoying Wan. 2006. ‘A Study of Sense Index in English Dictionaries for
Advanced Dictionaries and its Implications.’ Foreign Language and Literature Studies 135, 2:
104–107
Chen, Yuzhen. 2006. ‘A Cognitive Approach to Lexicographical Representation.’ Journal of
Beijing International Studies University 140,10: 19–23.
Csábi, S. 2004. ‘A Cognitive Linguistic View of Polysemy in English and its Implications
for Teaching’. In Achard, M. and S. Niemeier. (eds). Cognitive Linguistics, Second
Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter:
233–256
Cuyckens, H. and B. E. Zawada, (eds.). 2001. Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers
from the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997, (Vol. 177.).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Darmesteter, A. 1886. The Life of Words as the Symbols of Ideas. London: Kegan Paul, Trench &
Co.
Dirven, R. 1999. ‘Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Event Schemata’. In Panther, K. and
R. Günter (eds) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 273–287.
Dirven, R. and M. Verspoor (eds). 2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics
(Cognitive Linguistics in Practice Vol. 1.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Evans, V. 2005. ‘The Meaning of Time: Polysemy, the Lexicon and Conceptual Structure.’ Journal
of Linguistics 41, 1: 33–75
Falkum, I. L. and A. V. Benito, 2015. ‘Polysemy: Current Perspectives and Approaches.’ Lingua:
International Review of General Linguistics 157: 1–16.
Foraker, S. and G. L. Murphy. 2012. ‘Polysemy in Sentence Comprehension: Effects of Meaning
Dominance.’ Journal of Memory and Language 67 (4): 407–425.
16 Huaguo Lu

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

Fraser, B. L. 2008. ‘Beyond Definition: Organising Semantic Information in Bilingual
Dictionaries.’ International Journal of Lexicography 21, 1: 69–93.
Frisson, S. 2015. ‘About Bound and Scary Books: The Processing of Book Polysemies.’ Lingua:
International Review of General Linguistics 157: 17–35.
Gao, Chengying. 2008. The Optimized Model of Sense Ordering for ESL Dictionaries: A
Prototype Theory Based Study. M.A. Thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Gao, Jun. 2013. ‘Basic Cognitive Experiences and Definitions in the Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English.’ International Journal of Lexicography 26,1: 58–89.
Geeraerts, D. 1989. ‘Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory.’ Linguistics 27: 587–612.
Geeraerts, D. 1990. ‘The Lexicographical Treatment of Prototypical Polysemy.’ In Tsohatzidis, S.
L. (ed). Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. New York: Routledge,
195–210
Geeraerts, D. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gold, D. L. 1986. ‘Ordering the Senses in a Monolingual Dictionary Entry.’ Babel: International
Journal of Translation 32, 1: 44–49.
Gries, S. T. 2015. ‘Polysemy.’ in Dabrowska, E. and D. Divjak. (eds.). Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics (HSK Vol. 39.). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Halas, A. 2016. ‘The Application of the Prototype Theory in Lexicographic Practice: A Proposal
of a Model for Lexicographic Treatment of Polysemy.’ Lexikos 26,1: 124–144.
Hanks, P. 1987. ‘Definitions and Explanations.’ In Sinclair, J. M. (ed). Looking up: An Account of
the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing and the Development of the Collins COBUILD
English Language Dictionary. London and Glasgow: Collins ELT, 117–136.
Jiang, Guiying, and Qiaoyun Chen. 2017. ‘A Micro Exploration into Learners’ Dictionaries: A
Prototype Theoretical Perspective.’ International Journal of Lexicography 30,1: 108–139.
Klein, D.E. and G.L. Murphy. 2001. ‘The Representation of Polysemous Words.’ Journal of
Memory and Language 45 (2): 259–282.
Klepousniotou, E., D. Titone and C. Romero. 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
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lew, R. 2010. ‘Users Take Shortcuts: Navigating Dictionary Entries.’ In A. Dykstra and
Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress, Leeuwarden, 6-
10 July 2010. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy/ Afuk, 1121–1132.
Lew, R. 2011. Space Restrictions in Paper and Electronic Dictionaries and The Implications for
the Design of Production Dictionaries. Accessed on 14 February 2018 https://repozytorium.
amu.edu.pl/jspui/bitstream/10593/799/1/Lew_space_restrictions_in_paper_and_electronic_dic
tionaries.pdf
Lew, R. 2013. ‘Identifying, Ordering and Defining Senses.’ In Jackson, H. (ed). The Bloomsbury
Companion to Lexicography. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 283–302.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 2007. ‘Polysemy, Prototypes, and Radial Categories.’ In
Geeraerts, D., and H. Cuyckens, (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New
York: Oxford University Press, 139–169.
Lindstromberg, S. 2001. ‘Preposition Entries in UK Monolingual Learners’ Dictionaries: Problems
and Possible Solutions.’ Applied Linguistics 22,1: 79–103.
Luo, Tianxian and Peilin Sheng. 2006. ‘On Simplification and Unity of Reference Symbols in
English Learners’ Dictionaries.’ Lexicographical Studies 4: 71–78.
Structuring Polysemy in English Learner’s Dictionaries 17

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

Moon, R. 2004. ‘On Specifying Metaphor: An Idea and Its implementation.’ International Journal
of Lexicography 17, 2: 195–222.
Nakao, K. 1989. ‘English-Japanese Learners’ Dictionaries.’ International Journal of Lexicography
2, 4: 295–314.
Nerlich, B. 1992. Semantic Theories in Europe, 1830-1930: From Etymology to Contextuality
(Studies in the history of the language sciences Vol. 59). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Nesi, H. and K.H. Tan. 2011. ‘The Effect of Menus and Signposting on the Speed and Accuracy of
Sense Selection.’ International Journal of Lexicography 24,1: 79–96.
Nielsen, S. 2008. ‘The Effect of Lexicographical Information Costs on Dictionary Making and
Use’. Lexikos 18,1: 170–189.
Ostermann, C. 2015. Cognitive Lexicography: A New Approach to Lexicography Making Use of
Cognitive Semantics (Lexicographica Series Maior Vol. 149.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Prcic, T. 2005. ‘Enter The ‘Big Fifth’ EFL Dictionary: Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced
Learners.’ Lexicographica 20: 303–322.
Ptasznik, B. and R. Lew. 2014. ‘Do Menus Provide Added Value to Signposts in Print
Monolingual Dictionary Entries? An Application of Linear Mixed-effects Modelling in
Dictionary User Research.’ International Journal of Lexicography 27(3): 241–258.
Radden, G. and Z. Kövecses. 1999. ‘Towards a Theory of Metonymy.’ In Panther, K. and R.
Günter (eds) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–59.
Rosch, E. 1973. ‘On the Internal Structure of Perceptual and Semantic Categories’. In Moore,
T. E. (ed) Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press,
111–144.
Rosch, E. 1975. ‘Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories’. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General 104, 3: 192–233.
Rundell, M. 1999. ‘Dictionary Use in Production.’ International Journal of Lexicography 12, 1:
35–53.
Rundell, M. 2006. ‘More than One Way to Skin a Cat: Why Full-Sentence Definitions have not
been Universally Adopted.’ In Corino, E., C. Marello, and C. Onesti. (eds.). Proceedings of 12th
EURALEX International Congress, EURALEX 2006. Alessandria: Edizioni Dell’Orso,
323–337.
Scholfield, P. 1999. ‘Dictionary Use in Reception.’ International Journal of Lexicography 12,1:
13–34.
Schönefeld, D. 2005. ‘Zero-derivation – Functional change – Metonymy’ in Bauer, L., and S. V.
Hernández (eds). Approaches to Conversion/Zero-derivation. Münster: Waxmann Verlag,
131–158.
Smirnova, A. Y. 2016. ‘“Where is the Bank?” or How to “Find” Different Senses of a Word.’
Heliyon 2,6: e00065.
Tarp, S. 2010. ‘Functions of Specialised Learners’ dictionaries.’ In Fuertes Oliveira, P. (ed),
Specialised Dictionaries for Learners. Berlin: De Gruyter, 39–53.
Taylor, J. R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tian, Bing and Guohua Chen. 2009. Researching the Design Features of English Dictionaries for
Advanced Learners. Beijing: Science Press.
Tono, Yukio. 2011. ‘Application of Eye-tracking in EFL Learners’ Dictionary Look-up Process
Research.’ International Journal of Lexicography 24,1: 124–153.
Tyler, A., and V., Evans 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied
Meaning, and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
van der Meer, G. 1997. ‘Four English Learners’ dictionaries and Their Treatment of Figurative
Meaning.’ English Studies 78, 6: 556–571.
18 Huaguo Lu

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ijl/ecy018/5106283 by Universidad de Sevilla user on 07 November 2018

van der Meer, G. 2000. ‘Core, Subsense and the New Oxford Dictionary of English (NODE): On
How Meanings Hang Together and Not Separately.’ In Heid, U., S. Evert, E. Lehmann and
C. Rohrer (eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth EURALEX International Congress, EURALEX
2000, Stuttgart, Germany, August 8th -12th, 2000. Vol I. Universität Stuttgart, Institut für
maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung: 419-432.
van der Meer, G. 2002. ‘Dictionary Entry and Access. Trying to See Trees and Woods.’
In Braasch, A. and C. Povlsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth EURALEX International
Congress, EURALEX 2002 Copenhagen, Denmark August 13-17, 2002. Vol. 2. Center for
Sprogteknologi, University of Copenhagen: 509-519.
van der Meer, G. 2004. ‘On Defining: Polysemy, Core Meanings and ‘Great Simplicity’ In
Williams, G. and S. Vessier (eds), Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International
Congress. Vol. 3. Lorient, France, July 6-10, 2004. Université de Bretagne-Sud: 807–815.
Verspoor, M. and W. Lowie. 2003. ‘Making Sense of Polysemous Words’. Language Learning
53.3: 547–586.
Verspoor, M. H. 2008. ‘Cognitive Linguistics and its Applications to Second Language Teaching’.
In Cenoz, J. and N. H. Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd, vol.
6: Knowledge about Language. New York: Springer, 79–81
Vicente, A. and I. L. Falkum. 2017. ‘Polysemy.’ The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics
Accessed on 25 April 2018. http://linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019938
4655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-325
Wei, Xiangqing, Yundong Geng and Huaguo Lu. 2014. Researching the Design Features of
Bilingual Learners’ Dictionaries. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wittgenstein, L. 1978. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe, G. E. M. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Wojciechowska, S. 2012. Conceptual Metonymy and Lexicographic Representation. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang.
Xu, Hai and Yue Lou. 2015. ‘Treatment of the Preposition to in English Learners’ Dictionaries:
A Cognitive Approach.’ International Journal of Lexicography 28, 2: 207–231.
Yamada, S. 2013. ‘Monolingual Learners’ Dictionaries–Where Now.’ In Jackson, H. (ed.). The
Bloomsbury Companion to Lexicography. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 188–212.
Yang, Na and Xiangqing Wei. 2016. ‘Metaphor Information in Macmillan English Dictionary for
Advanced Learners: Presentation & Effectiveness.’ International Journal of Lexicography 29,4:
424-451.
Zhao, Qun and Weidong Luo. 2005. ‘An Effective Approach to Polysemous-word Acquisition.’
Foreign Language Education 26 (6): 50–53.
Zhao, Yanchun. 2003. Cognitive Exploration of Lexicography. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign
Language Education Press.