Monosemy

Last updated

Monosemy means 'one-meaning' and is a methodology primarily for lexical semantic analysis, but which has widespread applicability throughout the various strata of language.

Contents

Originator

Despite several precursors, [1] monosemy as a theoretical model was developed most prominently by the transformational-generative linguist, Charles Ruhl. [2] [3]

Principles

Monosemy as a methodology for analysis is based on the recognition that almost all cases of polysemy (where a word is understood to have multiple meanings) require context in order to differentiate these supposed meanings.

Since context is an indispensable part of any polysemous meaning, Ruhl argues that it is better to locate the variation in meaning where it actually resides: in the context and not in the word itself. [4] Wallis Reid has demonstrated that a polysemous definition does not actually add any additional information that is not already located in the context, such that a polysemous definition is exactly as informative as a monosemous definition when the effects of context are "controlled" for (i.e. systematically factored out of a definition). [1]

A monosemous analysis assumes that any sign in a sign system signals one value within its paradigm, with a substance that arises out of its diachronic history. [5]

There are some cases where a word genuinely has two meanings that cannot be brought under a singular, more abstract sense, but these are better understood as instances of homonymy.

Recent Applications

Monosemy has been used in work by the Columbia School of Linguistics, [6] [7] in areas of cognitive linguistics, [8] and in linguistic research into Ancient Greek. [9] [10] [11] [12] [5] [13]

Other Understandings of Monosemy

Monosemy can also be understood as an attribute of a language (though this is not precisely what Charles Ruhl's theory articulates), namely the absence of semantic ambiguity in language. The artificial language Lojban and its predecessor Loglan represent attempts at creating monosemous languages. Monosemy is important for translation and semantic computing. [14]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 Reid, Wallis (2004), "Monosemy, homonymy and polysemy", Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis, Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, vol. 51, John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 93–129, doi:10.1075/sfsl.51.06rei, ISBN   9789027215604
  2. ↑ Ruhl, Charles (1999). On monosemy : a study in linguistic semantics. NetLibrary, Inc. ISBN   058506492X. OCLC   1053022622.
  3. ↑ Ruhl, Charles (2002), "Data, Comprehensiveness, Monosemy", Signal, Meaning, and Message, Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, vol. 48, John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 171–189, doi:10.1075/sfsl.48.11ruh, ISBN   9789027215574
  4. ↑ Ruhl, Charles (1999). On monosemy : a study in linguistic semantics. NetLibrary, Inc. pp. xii. ISBN   058506492X. OCLC   1053022622.
  5. 1 2 Wishart, Ryder A. “Monosemy: A Theoretical Sketch for Biblical Studies.” BAGL7 (2018) 107–39. http://bagl.org/files/volume7/BAGL_7-4_Wishart.pdf
  6. ↑ Reid, Wallis; Otheguy, Ricardo; Stern, Nancy. (2002). Signal, meaning, and message perspectives on sign-based linguistics. John Benjamins Pub. Co. ISBN   9027282234. OCLC   1109375613.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ↑ International Columbia School Conference on Linguistics (6th : 1999 : Rutgers University) (2004). Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis. J. Benjamins. ISBN   1588115666. OCLC   56318193.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  8. ↑ Németh T., Enikő; Bibok, Károly (2001). Pragmatics and the flexibility of word meaning. Elsevier Science, Ltd. ISBN   0080439713. OCLC   464060189.
  9. ↑ Fewster, Gregory P. (2013). Creation language in Romans 8 : a study in monosemy. Brill. ISBN   9789004246485. OCLC   907619236.
  10. ↑ Porter, Stanley E.; Fewster, Gregory P.; Land, Christopher D., eds. (2016). Modeling Biblical Language : selected papers from the McMaster Divinity College Linguistics Circle. ISBN   9789004309265. OCLC   928615102.
  11. ↑ Porter, Stanley E. (2015-03-17). Linguistic analysis of the Greek New Testament : studies in tools, methods, and practice. ISBN   978-0801049989. OCLC   1105263328.
  12. ↑ Lappenga, Benjamin J. (2015-10-08). Paul's Language of Zēlos : monosemy and the rhetoric of identity and practice. ISBN   9789004302457. OCLC   1024095071.
  13. ↑ Wishart, Ryder A. “Monosemy in Biblical Studies: A Critical Analysis of Recent Work.” BAGL6 (2017) 99–126. http://bagl.org/files/volume6/BAGL_6-5_Wishart.pdf
  14. ↑ Wishart, Ryder A (2018-08-10). "Hierarchical and Distributional Lexical Field Theory: A Critical and Empirical Development of Louw and Nida's Semantic Domain Model". International Journal of Lexicography. 31 (4): 394–419. doi: 10.1093/ijl/ecy015 . ISSN   0950-3846.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.