The Interplay of Synonymy and Polysemy

24 | 
Figure 4.
Schema showing the meaning extensions for the primitive BE in Jackendoff (1990) 
BE is an abstract concept that encompasses at least four types of meaning. It can mean 
that an object has a property, that an object is located at a place, that something belongs to 
someone or that something/one is located in time. The meaning extensions seen with this 
primitive can be easily captured using a higher-level schema connected by solid elaboration 
links to more specific lower-level schemas.
Many of the theoretical tools proposed by Jackendoff (1990) and Pustejovsky (1995) 
can be captured with the tools proposed by Goldberg (1995) and Langacker (2008). The 
insights of the decompositional theories are not lost if we adopt a CG perspective. The benefit 
in adopting a constructional perspective is that there are aspects of the behavior of these 
throw
-verbs that cannot be captured by the tools proposed in Jackendoff (1990) and 
Pustejovsky (1995). The following sections exemplify two cases where the CG perspective 
allows us a better insight into specific phenomena that would not be possible using the tools 
proposed by the traditional or decompositional theories.
2.4.2 Synonymy as Schemas 
In §2.2 I describe two general views of synonymy. The first uses primarily truth-
functionality to determine synonymy. It separates semantics from pragmatics, and views 
pragmatic details such as register and style as irrelevant to synonymy. Collocational 
restrictions are also irrelevant to synonymy. Let’s call this the truth-functional synonymy 
perspective. The second view places emphasis on both semantic and pragmatic aspects of 
meaning, views collocational restrictions as important in pinpointing the meaning of words 
and strongly believes that there is no real synonymy: two words will always mean something 
different, even if at a nuanced level. I label this second view the no-synonymy perspective. 
I believe these two views can be reconciled to a certain extent. Though I agree with 
the second view, there are important insights provided by a truth-functional approach to 
synonymy. As an example, the phrases in (7) and (8) illustrate some of the uses of the verbs 
arrojar
and 
lanzar
. 
BE 
H
AVE A PROPERTY
L
OCATED AT A PLACE
B
ELONG TO SOMEONE
L
OCATED IN 
T
IME

---

25 | 
(7) 
(a) 
arrojar una mirada 
lanzar una mirada 
‘to throw (give) a look’ 
(b) 
arrojar una frase 
lanzar una frase 
‘to throw out a phrase’ 
(8) 
(a) 
*arrojar una campaña 
lanzar una campaña 
‘to launch a campaign’ 
(b) 
*arrojar un ataque 
lanzar un ataque 
‘to launch an attack’ 
(c) 
arrojar resultados 
*lanzar resultados 
‘to produce data’ 
In (7) 
arrojar
and 
lanzar 
can both combine with the same nouns to produce similar 
meanings. In (8), we see other uses where this is not the case: some combinations (8a-b) are 
only acceptable with 
lanzar
, while another (8c) is only acceptable with 
arrojar
. From a no-
synonymy perspective we would state that 
arrojar 
and 
lanzar
are verbs with different 
meanings and different combinatory profiles. That is, they combine with a different set of 
nouns. We would also say that even though you can say 
arrojar una mirada
and 
lanzar una 
mirada
, these phrases must be different, if not semantically, then pragmatically (Goldberg 
1995:67-68).
Even if we accept these statements are true, it is also useful to be able to distinguish 
(7) and (8). A speaker of Spanish will know that in some cases (such as those in (7)) the two 
verbs can combine with the same nouns to produce similar, though not identical, meanings. 
While in other cases (such as those in (8)) only one of the verbs can be used.
Goldberg (1995) could state that in (7) 
arrojar
and 
lanzar
can appear in the same 
constructions, and in (8) the verbs cannot appear in the same constructions. But saying that 
two verbs can appear in the same construction is different from saying that the two verbs 
denote similar situations. Sometimes both are true, but it is also the case that one can be true 
while the other is not. For example, the verbs 
sell
and 
paint
can be used in the same sentence.
(9) 
Joe painted Sally a picture. 
(Goldberg 1995:143, example 3) 
(10) Joe sold Sally a picture. 
It is possible for 
paint 
and 
sell 
to be used in the same construction. But (9) and (10) 
do not describe the same situation
3
and do not have the same truth-conditions. This means 
that there is a usefulness in distinguishing between two verbs that can appear in the same 
construction versus two verbs that express similar notions (in the same construction or not).
This is where truth-functional synonymy comes into play. From a truth-functional 
synonymy perspective we can say that in the case of (7a) and (7b) 
arrojar 
and 
lanzar
are 
synonyms. Both verbs can be used to describe the same situation and both will be true of that 
3
Both imply transfer from Joe to Sally. But the other details are not the same. In (9) Joe himself performed an 
action of painting which is not true of (10). Additionally, (10) implies that money was exchanged, which is not 
implied in (9). Overall, the actions performed by Joe in (9) are not the same as those in (10). 

---

26 | 
situation. In contrast, 
arrojar
and 
lanzar
are not synonymous in cases such as (8).Truth-
functional synonymy gives us the means to distinguish (7) from (8). 
Stating that at a certain level of analysis there is synonymy in (7) and there is no 
synonymy in (8) does not deny or run counter to the statements made from the no-synonymy 
camp. Instead, I believe they complement each other. I will adopt Tuggy’s (1985a) distinction 
between functional meaning and imagic meaning. In functional meaning, two words or 
phrases mean the same thing if they have the same truth conditions or, if we do not wish to 
rely on truth conditions, two words mean the same thing if they have the potential of being 
used interchangeably to denote the same situation. Functional meaning is the type of meaning 
that is relevant from the truth-functional synonymy perspective. In (7), where 
arrojar 
and 
lanzar 
can be used to denote the same situation, the verbs are