There are bits to be salvaged from Ruhl (1989), perhaps, but it might be easier to start elsewhere entirely.
Against Monosemy, pt 6: Using Ruhl (1989) in language description
Against monosemy, pt 5: The methodological gap
I fully acknowledge there is certainly an appeal for monosemy as a theoretical construct. The ability to schematize all usages or senses within a single abstract sense does indeed simplified and elegant semantic theory. Such a theory is an attractive prospect for all linguists.
Against monosemy, pt 4: Moving Greek letters
Generative grammar has moved on from its old theories about syntax. Can we please do the same with their semantic theories, too?
Against monosemy, pt 3: The ideal speaker-listener
We're getting over the peak and headed toward the end. The practical take away is coming.
Against monosemy, pt 2: Semantics & pragmatics
Semantic theory: it'll get harder before it gets hardest.
Against monosemy, pt 1: The lexicon’s original sin
Meaning is hard. Unfortunately, I'm not going to make any easier here.
