The Interplay of Synonymy and Polysemy

Langacker (2008) 
Langacker (2008) employs the concept of 
symbolic structures
to describe what in 
Goldberg’s (1995) terms are constructions. Symbolic structures incorporate or link together 
semantic structure and phonological structure (2008:15). Semantic structure contains the 
meaning of expressions, while phonological structure incorporates phonology and word 
order.

---

20 | 
Grammar is normally thought of as a set of rules for putting together lexical items. 
This conception of grammar can be captured in Langacker’s theory. Grammar consists of 
assemblies of symbolic structures which represent common patterns for joining smaller 
symbolic structures (2008:168). For example, English has a very productive schema for 
compounds which involves joining two nouns (2008:176). A schema for this pattern would 
show not only the final 
composite
structure, but also how the individual items (called 
component
s) are connected. The connections are called 
correspondences
. The 
correspondences connecting the components represent how these are integrated. There are 
also correspondences linking the components to the composite structure, but in this case the 
correspondences represent composition (2008:164). The component elements, the composite 
structure and the correspondences together form a 
constructional schema
(2008:168).
An important concept detailed by Langacker is schematization. A 
schema
is arrived 
at by noticing commonalities between multiple usage events (2008:17). When experiencing 
language, humans can abstract away from characteristics of specific usage events and notice 
patterns that are repeated throughout language. Then these schemas can be used to understand 
and to produce new expressions (2008:215).
Schemas can be derived at different levels of abstraction. The ditransitive can be 
described with a high level schema (Transfer[verb] + Nominal + Nominal). But it is also 
possible to posit lower level schemas that capture common patterns, such as (give + me + 
Nominal) (2008:243). These lower-level schemas can in fact be more active in understanding 
and producing language, even if there is a higher-level schema. Since they are lexically filled,
lower-level schemas provide better motivation for new expressions (2008:237). 
Schemas, though he represents them as boxes in his diagrams, are in fact not discrete 
elements; they are immanent in their instantiations (2008:56). Schemas are not distinct from 
the specific usage events, but instead lie within them (2008:174). For example, the lower 
level schema (give + me + Nominal) is also an example of the (Transfer[verb] + Nominal + 
Nominal). The more abstract schema is immanent in the more specified schema. Due to the 
restrictions of paper and written form, schemas are always represented as separate even 
though this is not really the case. 
 
Verbs can be characterized as schemas. The schema for a verb will include 
participants. These participants are accorded different levels of prominence. The focal or 
main participant is a