The Interplay of Synonymy and Polysemy

Polysemy links
connect constructions 
which are the same syntactically but which show some variation in meaning (1995:75). 
Metaphorical extension links
are posited between constructions which are related by a 
metaphorical mapping, making explicit the specific metaphors that connect constructions 
(1995:81). If one construction is a subpart of another, yet exists independently, then these two 
will be connected by a 
subpart link 
(1995:78)
.
Finally, an 
instance link
is posited when a 
construction is a more fully specified version of a (more abstract) construction (1995:79).
Links have two important characteristics. First of all, links are objects in the system. 
This means that they can show frequency effects and can be used productively (1995:77). For 
example, if a specific metaphorical extension link
 
is quite frequent then it can be productively 
applied to other constructions. Secondly, links do not simply apply one to one between whole 
constructions. Links can connect constituents internal to a construction and constructions can 

---

19 | 
be linked to several other constructions at a time. This allows her to capture multiple 
motivations (1995:100). 
Polysemy is portrayed in language by means of inheritance links. Specifically 
polysemy links and metaphorical extension links capture variations in the meaning of a 
construction. For example, the ditransitive has ‘cause to receive’ as a central meaning, yet 
several other meanings are connected to this central sense by polysemy links. Each sense is a 
construction, which shares the same syntactic shape with the central sense. The meanings, 
though not identical, are related to the central sense (1995:33-38).
An important aspect of Goldberg’s theory is that it restricts the amount of polysemy; 
this is especially true for verbs. She states that it is not necessary to posit distinct senses for a 
verb for every structure that it appears in. Instead “systematic differences in meaning between 
the same verb in different constructions are attributed directly to the particular constructions” 
(1995:4). This limits the number of senses associated with a verb.
Two features of Goldberg’s theory play a role in the topic of synonymy. First of all, 
Goldberg adopts a Principle of No Synonymy. Basically this states that any difference in 
form implies either a difference in semantic meaning or in pragmatic meaning (1995:68). The 
idea being that if a speaker choses to say 
daddy 
it is because he intends to express something 
different than if he had chosen to use 
father
. A second feature is that semantic relations that 
are not accompanied by syntactic similarity (which includes phonological form) are not 
captured explicitly within her system. So, for example, 
die
and 
kill
though related 
semantically, have no syntactic similarity and therefore would have no links between them 
(1995: 100).
These two features seem to lead to a very limited role for synonymy within her 
system. Instance links are the only possibility for capturing semantic similarity. A lexically 
specified form of the ditransitive, for example, would be semantically synonymous with the 
more abstract construction. Even with this possibility, semantic similarity is only represented 
in very limited circumstances.