The Interplay of Synonymy and Polysemy

Chapter 5 
Figure 1 
Schemas for predicate nominal 
139 
Figure 2 
Constructional schema representing the building of light verb constructions 
140 
Figure 3 
Semantic links relating the verb and noun and the LVC 
143 
Figure 4 
Constructional schema capturing the major characteristics of 
echar abajo
147 
Table 1 
Idiomatic phrases with 
echar 
that are semantically-schematic idioms 
147 

---

vi | 
List of Abbreviations for Glosses 
CL 
Clitic 
1
st
First person 
2
nd
Second person 
3
rd
Third person 
sg 
Singular 
pl 
Plural 
inf 
(verb in the) Infinitive 
nonrf 
Non-reflexive (cannot be co-referential with the subject)

---

vii | 
Abstract 
The knowledge associated with lexical items can be seen as including relations of 
meaning across words and relations of meaning within a single word. Words that share a 
similarity of meaning are said to be synonyms. A word that has multiple meanings is termed 
polysemous. This study focuses on a set of Spanish verbs that exhibit both these features: 
arrojar, echar, lanzar 
and 
tirar 
(all can be glossed as ‘to throw’). The words are considered 
synonyms (in thesauri and by speakers), yet the verbs are also capable of expressing many 
different meanings; they are polysemous. I investigated the charactersitics of the four verbs in 
use by exploring data from corpora (in two studies) and from an experimental test. The data 
were annotated for semantic traits and subjected to various statitstical tests to determine 
whether there was any significantly distinct behavior between the verbs. The focus of the 
tests was on the characteristics of the most important participant roles or arguments of the 
verb. The central concept shared by all four verbs is the notion of ‘throwing’, which involves 
three participants (a thrower, an object thrown and a trajectory of motion). Taking this 
meaning (‘throwing’) as central or prototypical, the tests explored variations in the expression 
and characteristics of these core participant roles. The tests are followed by a semantic 
analysis. The results show that each meaning that a verb can express tends to be associated 
with specific types of participant roles. Yet all the meaning extensions are shown to be 
semantically connected to the central throwing schema; in the overall semantics of the phrase 
and at the level of the participant roles. Therefore, even though the verbs are polysemous 
their meaning extensions are motivated, despite not being predictable. The results from the 
study also show that the verbs can in fact be seen as synonymous. Though the meanings of 
the verbs may not be identical (especially concerning pragmatics) they do have the ability to 
express similar meanings. This synonymy includes the central ‘throwing’ sense and a few 
other meaning extensions. Synonymy is only partial, though, since there are many meanings 
which the verbs do not share. Overall, the behavior of each verb can be characterized by 
noting its high occurrence in a handful of schemas and its infrequent occurrence in other 
constructions. A speaker’s knowledge of these four verbs includes the many meanings each 
verb can express (including common collocates), the participant roles associated with each 
and the semantic links that connect the uses to the central ‘throwing’ meaning. Speakers also 
have knowledge of overlap between the verbs: uses where verbs are used interchangeably and 
cases where one verb is the (only) preferred choice.

---