The Interplay of Synonymy and Polysemy

bolded
.
Figure 1
. Schema for a throwing event 
 
 
 
Prototypicality is an important notion in cognitive linguistics. Different parameters 
have been proposed in order to classify elements as the prototype. Some researchers argue 
that the prototype is the most cognitively salient; corpus-based researchers usually consider 
the prototype the most frequent in a corpus (Gilquin 2006). Gries (2006) argues for a 
prototype that is the most frequent in the corpus and the one that exhibits the most variation 
in the characteristics that were annotated.
Cognitive salience would need to be explored with psycholinguistic experiments, 
which was not possible for this study. A look at the frequency of the 
THROWING
schema 
shows that each verb has a different behavior; it is most frequent with 
tirar
and 
arrojar
, but is 
much less common with 
lanzar
and 
echar
. Based on frequency, different prototypes would 
have to be posited for each verb. 
Still, I will use the 
THROWING 
schema as central for all verbs. One reason is that many 
cognitivists view concrete and physical senses as primary (MacWhinney 2001, Lakoff & 
Johnson 1980). The idea is that physical (versus abstract) things are easier to comprehend 
from our experiences with our bodies.
INITIATOR
VERB
MOVANT
DIRECTIONAL
(1) 
Bert
ARROJA
piedras
a su barquito
CdE:19-F, Adam Birner
 
‘Bert
throws
stones
at his little boat’ 
I
NITIATOR
THROW
M
OVANT
D
IRECTIONAL

---

48 | 
But the main reason for positing a central sense is that it allows for a single starting 
point for all verbs. That is, all four verbs are judged from the perspective of the same schema. 
All variations and extensions in meaning and usage can be compared to a single schema 
shared by all. Throughout this paper, I begin by describing the results from each study. Then 
any specific constructions or patterns of usage that appear with each verb are described. 
Then, these variant constructions are compared to the central 
THROWING
schema.
I begin by describing the position of the 
INITIATOR 
(§4.1). The 400-sentence corpus is 
the only data source on this participant. I continue with a lengthy discussion of the 
MOVANT
(§4.2). I begin by describing the results of the 400-sentence corpus (§4.2.1) and a semantic 
analysis of the results (§4.2.2-§4.2.4). I then describe the results of the collostructional 
analysis (§4.2.5). I follow with a discussion of sentences with no overt 
MOVANT 
(§4.2.6),
which could not be tested statistically. The most important findings from the study of 
MOVANTS 
are summarized in §4.2.7. 
The discussion then turns to the 
DIRECTIONAL 
(§4.3). I begin by describing some of 
the results from the 400-sentence corpus (§4.3.1 and §4.3.2). Then I discuss the results of the 
collostructional analysis (§4.3.3) and the results from the questionnaire (§4.3.4). In this final 
section I also describe how the results from the three tests converge and how they diverge. I 
then discuss the case of aspectual directionals from the 400-sentence corpus (§4.3.5). I end 
with a semantic analysis of a specific schema with 
tirar
(§4.3.6). A summary of the major 
conclusions from the study of 
DIRECTIONALS
is given in §4.3.7.