The Interplay of Synonymy and Polysemy

 
Figure 3
. Abstract schema motivating the 
THROWING 
and 
PRODUCING DATA
schemas for 
arrojar
 
The extension relation that exists from ‘throwing’ to ‘producing’ is shown in c). An 
abstract schema captures the similarities of both uses. Let’s say that the semantics shared is 
emanation
. Talmy (2000:105-106) uses the term emanation to label the fictive motion of an 
intangible object emerging from a source. Here, I understand emanation as something 
emerging from a source: in the 
PRODUCING DATA
schema that something is intangible, while 
in the 
THROWING
schema it is tangible. Both producing and throwing are instantiations of this 
higher schema; the elaboration link is shown by a) and b). This diagram also shows that the 
schemas share the same phonological shape.
The fact that the higher level schema is more abstract and is instantiated by both 
constructions does not mean that it is the primary meaning or the most salient. It is 
completely possible to maintain the salience of the throwing sense. This is marked in the 
diagram by the bolded box.
P
RODUCING 
(
DATA
)
arrojar
T
HROWING
arrojar
E
MANATION
arrojar
a) 
b) 
c) 

---

55 | 
There is a large semantic distance between the throwing sense of the verb and the 
PRODUCING DATA
construction. This is made apparent by some aspects of the analysis. First 
of all, none of the participants of the throwing event line up exactly with the participants of 
the 
PRODUCING DATA
construction. We will see later that other meaning extensions 
sometimes maintain the same type of 
INITIATOR 
(or other argument), even when the semantics 
of the whole schema changes. Secondly, the schema that abstracts over both constructions, 
shown in figure 3, must be fairly abstract to cover the similarities between both. This also 
indicates that there is limited semantic overlap.
The exploration of the 
INITIATOR
already teased out some differences in behavior 
among the verbs. 
Echar 
and 
tirar
strongly prefer animate 
INITIATORS
. Even though each verb 
is capable of expressing various types of meanings, those meanings always prefer animate 
INITIATORS
. 
Lanzar 
and 
arrojar
have many more inanimate subjects. Some examples are 
related to animates through metonymy: the body parts of animate beings or companies which 
are composed of individuals. Another common type is a natural force, which is seen as 
capable of creating and exerting its own force. Other examples of inanimates co-occur with 
specific 
MOVANTS
, representing meaning extensions for each verb.
Most importantly, the data on 
INITIATORS
is strongly influenced by one frequent 
construction with 
arrojar
. This verb’s higher number of inanimates is due in part to the 
PRODUCING DATA 
construction. I suggest that the 
PRODUCING DATA
construction is an 
extension from the physical sense of ‘throwing’. This extension in meaning can be expressed 
through different levels of analysis and by comparing the different elements that make up 
verbal meaning.