TY - JOUR AU - Wei,, Xiangqing AB - 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 neither 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 approach 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 draw upon insights gained from this theory to review the layout of senses in existing dictionaries 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 resemblance between, and the different degrees of centrality of, senses are bound to be underrepresented 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 insufficient to clarify how senses are interrelated. (See Section 3) This paper proposes a Prototype Theory-based model to make up the deficiencies of linear 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 provides 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 characterized 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, counterexamples 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 experiments 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: Prototypical categories exhibit degrees of typicality; not every member is equally representative for a category. Prototypical categories are blurred at the edges. Prototypical categories cannot be defined by means of a single set of criterial (necessary and sufficient) attributes. 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 carrying 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 independent from the others (feature b). Third, the polysemic lexical item as a whole cannot be adequately 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 latter treats the senses of a polysemic lexical item as deriving from a single meaning representation (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 polysemy in dictionaries. Although it favors the sense enumeration representation, ‘lexicography 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: It expands polysemy to senses associated with different parts of speech. It is traditionally 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 distinguish 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 phenomenon (in the form of conversion or zero-derivation) (Cuyckens and Zawada 2001: xiv). 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 semantic 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. 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 clustered 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). 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 individual lexical item. Semantic extensions might be more comprehensible if the systematicity 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’ dictionaries: First, senses associated with different parts of speech need not be treated in different 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. 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 classifies senses of some polysemic items into core senses and sub-senses and arranges them hierarchically. 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 conceptual metaphor (Moon 2004, Yang and Xiangqing Wei 2016), but also observed in its ordering of metaphorical and metonymic senses (Wojciechowska 2012: 98). When we reproduce 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 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) to improve the situation that someone or something is in (6) often passive to officially end a rule or law that stopped someone from doing something (7) 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) if something such as cloud or fog lifts, the weather improves and you can see clearly again (11) 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) to cause the amount or level of something to increase (14) to dig vegetables or other plants out of the ground (15) if your voice lifts or you lift it, you start to talk more loudly (16) to airlift something or someone (17) lift 2 NOUN an occasion when someone takes you somewhere in their car. (18) BRITISH a machine that carries people up or down between different levels of a tall building. AMERICAN elevator (19) a movement in which something is lifted (20) singular if something gives you a lift or you get a lift from it , it makes you feel happier (21) science the force that makes an aircraft leave the ground and stay in the air (22) 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: The verb lift and the noun lift are treated as homonyms, each constituting an individual, superscript-numbered headword (i.e. lift1 and lift2). 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 result, 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 sentences, 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. In some cases, senses at the same level of the hierarchy are not of the same importance, 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. 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 because 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 accessible by (1) to users only when users understand how the conceptual metaphor HAPPY IS UP operates in this context. This mechanism is apparently not something 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, logical sense ordering demonstrates apparent inadequacies and encounters the afore-mentioned linearization problem. 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: 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 interrupted 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 associated 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 concatenation (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 information 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). 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 limited 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 hierarchical structure. 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 connected but leave users to figure out how one extends to another. Having noticed the limitation, lexicographers attempt to demonstrate the mechanisms for semantic extensions 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 suggested solution is to use phrases or labels such as resemble (Halas 2016: 137), as if (van der Meer 2000: 426), metaphorized into (Zhao 2003:186) and metaphoric extensions or metonymic extensions (Smirnova 2016) in definitions. However, this kind of metalanguage 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 mechanism 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 logical 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 global information needs and local (or punctual: see Tarp 2010:41 for this distinction) information 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 presentation 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 (Prćić 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 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 multidimensional 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 ordering 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 efficient 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 information needs. This provides us with an important clue: we might as well look beyond 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 supplement 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 representations…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 meanings 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 information 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. 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 frequency; c. predictability regarding other senses; d. a sense which relates to lived human experience. 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 extend 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): Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The Semantic graph for lift (M= metaphor; ME=metonymy). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The Semantic graph for lift (M= metaphor; ME=metonymy). 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. 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 ‘normal’ 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 information 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 ifit 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 ifit 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 ifit 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 ifthe 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 permission and without intending to return it. (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 contextualizes 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 adverbial 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 incorporates the short definition of the direct superordinate sense. As far as both formats are concerned, 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 definition 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 devices. 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 polysemic 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 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 polysemic items, the nodes and paths are so numerous that they cannot be graphically represented 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 definitions 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, (tí), happens to display a similar pattern of semantic extension: its basic ‘raise’ sense extends to a ‘cheer’ one (as exemplified by the phrase (tí 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 presentation can be characterized as follows: short definitions and their corresponding full definitions 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 mentioned 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 representation is used in electronic dictionaries is largely due to ‘the force of lexicographical 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 examined 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 deficiencies, we suggest drawing a semantic graph for the polysemic item lift to supplement the linear 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 practical lexicography and serve users’ global information needs better. However, the model needs to be tried on more lexical items. Prepositions are undoubtedly 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. landmark, 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 polysemic 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. Footnotes 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 proposed by cognitive semanticists (Gries 2015: 474). References A. Dictionaries Jiang Lansheng , Tan Jingrong , and Rong Chen . (eds.) 2016 . The Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (Seventh Edition ). Beijing : The Commercial Press . (CCD7) 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 , Kojima Y. (eds.) 1984 . Kenkyusha’s Lighthouse English-Japanese Dictionary (Revised edition ). Tokyo : Kenkyusha . B. Other literature Atkins B. S. , Rundell M. . 2008 . The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography . New York : Oxford University Press . Barcelona A. 2003 . ‘Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics.’ In Cuyckens H. , Berg T. , Dirven R. , Panther K. U. (eds.). Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden . ( Vol. 243 .). Amsterdam and Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing , 223 – 255 . Beréndi M. , Csábi S. , Kövecses Z. . 2008 . ‘Using Conceptual Metaphors and Metonymies in Vocabulary Teaching.’ In F. Boers , Lindstromberg S. . (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 , Wan. Xiaoying 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. , Niemeier S. . (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. , Günter R. (eds) Metonymy in Language and Thought . Amsterdam : John Benjamins , 273 – 287 . Dirven R. , Verspoor M. (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 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Falkum I. L. , Benito A. V. , 2015 . ‘ Polysemy: Current Perspectives and Approaches.’ Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics 157 : 1 – 16 . Foraker S. , Murphy G. L. . 2012 . ‘ Polysemy in Sentence Comprehension: Effects of Meaning Dominance.’ Journal of Memory and Language 67 ( 4 ): 407 – 425 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Fraser B. L. 2008 . ‘ Beyond Definition: Organising Semantic Information in Bilingual Dictionaries.’ International Journal of Lexicography 21 , 1 : 69 – 93 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS 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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Geeraerts D. 1989 . ‘Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory.’ Linguistics 27 : 587 – 612 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS 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. , Divjak D. . (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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS 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 , Chen. Qiaoyun 2017 . ‘A Micro Exploration into Learners’ Dictionaries: A Prototype Theoretical Perspective.’ International Journal of Lexicography 30 , 1 : 108 – 139 . Klein D.E. , Murphy G.L. . 2001 . ‘ The Representation of Polysemous Words.’ Journal of Memory and Language 45 ( 2 ): 259 – 282 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Klepousniotou E. , Titone D. , 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 Crossref Search ADS PubMed Lakoff G. , Johnson M. . 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 , T. Schoonheim (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_dictionaries.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. , Cuyckens H. , (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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Luo Tianxian , Sheng Peilin . 2006 . ‘On Simplification and Unity of Reference Symbols in English Learners’ Dictionaries.’ Lexicographical Studies 4 : 71 – 78 . Moon R. 2004 . ‘ On Specifying Metaphor: An Idea and Its implementation.’ International Journal of Lexicography 17 , 2 : 195 – 222 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Nakao K. 1989 . ‘ English-Japanese Learners’ Dictionaries.’ International Journal of Lexicography 2 , 4 : 295 – 314 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS 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. , Tan K.H. . 2011 . ‘ The Effect of Menus and Signposting on the Speed and Accuracy of Sense Selection.’ International Journal of Lexicography 24 , 1 : 79 – 96 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS 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 . Prćić T. 2005 . ‘Enter The ‘Big Fifth’ EFL Dictionary: Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners.’ Lexicographica 20 : 303 – 322 . Ptasznik B. , Lew R. . 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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Radden G. , Kövecses Z. . 1999 . ‘Towards a Theory of Metonymy.’ In Panther K. , Günter R. (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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Rundell M. 1999 . ‘ Dictionary Use in Production.’ International Journal of Lexicography 12 , 1 : 35 – 53 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Rundell M. 2006 . ‘More than One Way to Skin a Cat: Why Full-Sentence Definitions have not been Universally Adopted.’ In Corino E. , Marello C. , Onesti C. . (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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Schönefeld D. 2005 . ‘Zero-derivation – Functional change – Metonymy’ in Bauer L. , Hernández S. V. (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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 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 , Chen Guohua . 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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Tyler A. , Evans V. 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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS 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. , Lowie W. . 2003 . ‘ Making Sense of Polysemous Words’ . Language Learning 53 . 3 : 547 – 586 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Verspoor M. H. 2008 . ‘Cognitive Linguistics and its Applications to Second Language Teaching’. In Cenoz J. , Hornberger N. H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education , 2nd , vol. 6 : Knowledge about Language. New York : Springer , 79 – 81 Vicente A. , Falkum I. L. . 2017 . ‘Polysemy.’ The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics Accessed on 25 April 2018. http://linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-325 Wei Xiangqing , Geng Yundong , Lu Huaguo . 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 , Lou Yue 2015 . ‘ Treatment of the Preposition to in English Learners’ Dictionaries: A Cognitive Approach.’ International Journal of Lexicography 28 , 2 : 207 – 231 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Yamada S. 2013 . ‘Monolingual Learners’ Dictionaries–Where Now.’ In Jackson H. (ed.). The Bloomsbury Companion to Lexicography . London : Bloomsbury Publishing , 188 – 212 . Yang Na , Wei Xiangqing 2016 . ‘ Metaphor Information in Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners: Presentation & Effectiveness.’ International Journal of Lexicography 29,4: 424-451 . Zhao Qun , Luo. Weidong 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 . © 2018 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) TI - Structuring Polysemy in English Learners’ Dictionaries: A Prototype Theory-Based Model JF - International Journal of Lexicography DO - 10.1093/ijl/ecy018 DA - 2019-03-01 UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/structuring-polysemy-in-english-learners-dictionaries-a-prototype-C5ABD2MugM SP - 20 VL - 32 IS - 1 DP - DeepDyve ER -