The sentences in (19–22) show examples of different uses which are possible for certain classes of words. These different uses are often cited as cases of systematic polysemy, i.e., distinct senses related by a productive rule of some kind.32 However, Cruse (2000; 2004) argues that they are best analyzed as “facets” of a single sense, by which he means “fully discrete but non-antagonistic readings of a word”.33
(19) book (Cruse 2004)
a. My chemistry book makes a great doorstop. [physical object]
b. My chemistry book is well-organized but a bit dull. [information content]
(20) bank (Cruse 2000: 116; similar examples include school, university, etc.):
a. The bank in the High Street was blown up last night. [premises]
b. That used to be the friendliest bank in town. [personnel]
c. This bank was founded in 1575. [institution]
(21) Britain (Cruse 2000: 117; Croft & Cruse 2004: 117):
a. Britain lies under one metre of snow. [land mass]
b. Britain today is mourning the death of the Royal corgi. [populace]
c. Britain has declared war on San Marino. [political entity]
(22) chicken, duck, etc. (Croft & Cruse 2004: 117):
a. My neighbor’s chickens are noisy and smelly. [animal]
b. This chicken is tender and delicious. [meat]
Cruse describes facets as “distinguishable components of a global whole”.34 The word book, for example, names a complex concept which includes both the physical object (the tome) and the information which it contains (the text). In the most typical uses of the word, it is used to refer to both the object and its information content simultaneously. In contexts like those seen in (19), however, the word can be used to refer to just one facet or the other (text or tome).
Cruse’s strongest argument against the systematic polysemy analysis is the fact that these facets are non-antagonistic; they do not give rise to zeugma effects, as illustrated in (23). In this they are unlike normal polysemous senses, which are antagonistic. Under the systematic polysemy analysis we might derive the senses illustrated in (19–22) by a kind of metonymy, similar to that illustrated in (24).35 However, as the examples in (25) demonstrate, figurative senses are antagonistic with their literal counterparts. This suggests that facets are not figurative senses.
(23) a. This is a very interesting book, but it is awfully heavy to carry around.36
b. My religion forbids me to eat or wear rabbit.37
(24) a. I’m parked out back.
b. The ham sandwich at table seven left without paying.
c. Yeats is widely read although he has been dead for over 50 years.
d. Yeats is widely read, even though most of it is now out of print.
(25) a. # The ham sandwich at table seven was stale and left without paying.
b. # The White House needs a coat of paint but refuses to ask Congress for the money.
We cannot pursue a detailed discussion of these issues here. It may be that some of the examples in question are best treated in one way, and some in the other. The different uses of animal names illustrated in (22), for example, creature vs. meat, seem like good candidates for systematic polysemy, because they differ in grammatical properties (mass vs. count nouns). But the non-antagonism of the other cases seems to be a problem for the systematic polysemy analysis.
32 See for example Pustejovsky (1995), Nunberg & Zaenen (1992).
33 Cruse (2000: 116).
34 Croft & Cruse (2004: 116).
35 Nunberg (1979; 1995).
36 Cruse (2004).
37 Nunberg & Zaenen (1992).
