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.
Dissertation Abstract Published in Tyndale Bulletin
For those who do not know me, my name is Chris Fresch. I used to contribute over at Old School Script, but that blog is no longer active. Since then, Mike and Rachel kindly invited me to contribute here. So, here I am! This is a quick post to inform anyone who may be interested... Continue Reading →
Forthcoming: Analyzing Meaning by Paul Kroeger
Long time readers know that the authors are big fans of Paul Kroeger's introductory textbooks to grammar and syntax. Analyzing grammar: An introduction Analyzing syntax: A lexical-functional approach The former is an introduction to grammatical analysis focusing on morphology and syntax and the latter focuses on syntax specifically and is slightly more technical. The focus... Continue Reading →
A brief note on Ruhl (1989) On monosemy
Two quote from Rulh (1989) On monosemy...
