The Interplay of Synonymy and Polysemy

echar
and the other verbs in the 
THROWING 
schema. I 
posit three distinctions: 1) 
echar 
can express a less forceful action, 2) it can mean that the 
MOVANT 
is accompanied by the agent throughout the motion, and 3) 
echar
 
has a stronger 
requirement on the appearance of the 
DIRECTIONAL
.
This shows that there are some future 
avenues for research. One is to directly explore the encoding of force and strength associated 
with each verb, using a corpus analysis of manner phrases or an experimental study focusing 
on expressions of strength. There is also the possibility that there are important pragmatic 
differences between the verbs, even when they are functionally synonymous, as Goldberg 

---

153 | 
(1995) would argue. For example, both 
arrojar
and 
tirar
are used frequently in the 
THROWING 
schema. This leads one to wonder if there are any differences that can explain the 
choice of one verb or another. There may be influences, for example, from the type of genre 
(Gilquin 2010:21) or even the dialect.
The statistical measures explore each variable individually. Future research could 
explore the interaction of all features simultaneously, as has been done successfully by 
Divjak & Gries (2008), Gilquin (2010), Gries & Otani (2010), to name a few. Additional 
variables can also be at play. In the position of the 
INITIATOR
,
previous works have discussed 
the volitionality of the doer, whether it is a willing actor or not. This feature could be 
explored directly in future corpus and experimental studies. Another feature worth exploring 
is telicity. Verbs can differ in whether they describe an event as completed or not. There may 
even be differences in telicity between different uses of the same verb (as shown by LVCs).
There is much left to explore in order to get a full understanding of the semantic 
characteristics of each 
throw
-verb and the similarities that bind them as synonyms. The initial 
steps taken in this study have teased apart the complex behavior of four verbs, having 
demonstrated their partial synonymy and the capability of each verb to express a variety of 
related notions.

---

154 | 
References 
Alonso Ramos, M. (1995). Hacia una definición del concepto de colocación: de J. R. Firth a 
I. A. Mel'čuk. 
Revista de Lexicografía
:
 
1. 9-28. 
Alonso Ramos, M. (2004). 
Las construcciones con verbo de apoyo
. Madrid: Visor Libros. 
Arppe, A. & Järvikivi, J. (2007). Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and 
experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. 
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic 
Theory
: 3(2). 131-159. 
Atkins, S., Fillmore, C.J. & Johnson, C.R. (2003). Lexicographic relevance: Selecting 
information from corpus evidence. 
International Journal of Lexicography
: 16(3). 251-
280. 
Bosque, I. (2004). Combinatoria y Significación. Algunas Reflexiones. In REDES. 
Brugman, C. (2001). Light verbs and polysemy. 
Language Sciences
:
 
23. 551-578. 
Bybee, J. & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of 'Becoming'. 
Language
:
 
82(2). 323-355. 
Cifuentes Férez, P. (2008). 
Motion in English and Spanish: A perspective from cognitive 
linguistics, typology and psycholinguistics.
Phd thesis. Departamento de Filología 
Inglesa. Facultad de Letras. Universidad de Murcia.