This is the entirety of my series of discussion of Charles Ruhl's (1989) monograph On monosemy.
Against monosemy: The complete series
Gender & voice: marriage, divorce, adultery
A few days ago, the Classics Blog, Sententiae Antiquae, had a lovely piece on how language, grammar, and gender often intersect. A man marries, a woman gets married, but what about divorce & adultery? Rachel Aubrey investigates.
Passing Grammar Notes: Perfects & Persistent Situations
It is sort of taken as a given in grammars that the perfects in these two languages are different, but there is surprisingly little discussion of exactly what that means or how they are different.
Against Monosemy, pt 6: Using Ruhl (1989) in language description
There are bits to be salvaged from Ruhl (1989), perhaps, but it might be easier to start elsewhere entirely.
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.
