Liliana Lexicology.docx

MOLDOVA STATE UNIVERSITY

The concept of Synonymy in Linguistics

Made by: Iacub Liliana, 2nd year student Faculty of Philology, Rom- Eng. (ȘE). Verified by: Pascaru Daniela, dr., lect. univ.

Chișinău– 2017 1

CHAPTER I I. INTRODUCTION TO SYNONYMS

Generally, it is not easy to find a definition of synonymy on which all linguists would agree. Therefore, it is necessary to have a look at the two main streams literature provides us with:

One group of linguists (Lyons, Cruse, Saeed, Hurford, for example) differentiate the degree of synonymous expressions. They think of synonymy as sameness of meaning (Lyons, 1995:60) and similarity of meaning (Saeed, 1997:65). That means that we have to decide, in general, between “absolute” and “near synonymy” (Lyons, 1995:60). The criterion for sameness of meaning is after Lyons “identity” (Lyons, 1995:60). That means that certain conditions have to be fulfilled if we want to characterize expressions as absolute synonymous:

1. all their meanings have to be identical 2. they have to be synonymous in all contexts 3. they have to be semantically equivalent in all dimensions of meaning (descriptive or non-descriptive) (Lyons, 1995:61).

All the linguists who work with this definition state that this kind of synonymy can only be found rarely in the English language (Cruse, 2000:157/Hurford, 1983:102/Lyons, 1995:61/Saeed, 1997:65). For Cruse, two examples of total or absolute synonymy are: (1) sofa : settee (2) pullover : sweater (2000:157).

In cases of near synonymy those representatives mainly agree with the other group of linguists who deny the existence of total sameness of meaning of expressions in the English language. For example Palmer, Hansen, Lipka, Welte and Kreidler are the theorists who are aware of the definition given above but they are all very critical against it. They agree that there is “neither ´total synonymy´ nor ´complete synonymy´” (Lipka, 1990:142); there are “no real synonyms” (Palmer, 1981:89).

Why do they think that the conditions for total synonymy stated by Lyons are impossible to be fulfilled in different expressions? Kreidler answers this question: “It would be wasteful for a language to have two terms that occur in exactly the same contexts and with exactly the same sense.” (1998:97). Hansen calls 2

this phenomenon economical principle of language (1982:213).

This “looser” definition of synonymy leads to the assumption that the English language must have many synonyms. The reason is that this language has a rich vocabulary because of its historical development. Today, we speak of two different kinds of English words: native and borrowed ones. So, there were two main sources for the present English vocabulary: Anglo-Saxon words (considered to be native) and words from French, Latin or Greek (borrowed or foreign words) (Palmer, 1981:88). Therefore, many expressions with “similar” meanings should and must exist. II. THE DEFINITION OF SYNONYMY Synonyms (Greek sundnumon, from syn - “together, with”, onoma - “name”) can be defined as two or more words of the same language, belonging to the same part of speech and possessing one or more identical or nearly identical denotative meanings, but different in morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, style and idiomatic use. Synonyms are similar, but not identical. Examples of some English synonyms are: car and automobile

smart

and

intelligent

baby and infant

student

and

pupil

pretty and attractive

sick

and

ill

funny and humorous

died and expired

Synonyms can be nouns, adverbs or adjectives, as long as both members of the pair are of the same part of speech. Traditionally, synonymy can only hold between words, and, more precisely, between words belonging to the same part of speech; for example: ‘enormous’ = ‘huge’; ‘gaze’ = ‘stare’.

III. The Concept of Synonymy in English Given the complexity of meaning, a person searching for an alternative word must be sure that the synonym chosen is accurate and precise. In its strict sense, a synonym is a word with a meaning identical or very similar to that of another word. In fact, it is often said that there is no such thing as an absolute synonym for any word, that is, a form that is identical in every aspect of meaning so that the two can be applied interchangeably. According to this extreme view, the only true synonyms are terms having precisely the same denotation, connotation, and range of applicability. As it turns out, these so-called true synonyms are frequently technical terms and almost always concrete words coming from linguistically disparate sources. Good examples of such pairs are celiac (from Greek) and abdominal (from Latin); and car (from Latin) and automobile (from French). These meet the criteria for true synonymy: they have 3

precisely the same denotations, connotations, and range of applicability, and they are used in identical contexts.

This view of synonymy is far too restrictive, however. I think that synonymous terms are those having nearly identical denotations. English is rich in such words. Speakers very often have a choice from among a set of words of differing origin but the same denotation. One may go to the shore (from Old English), the coast (from Latin), or the littoral (from Latin). One can refer to the sense of hearing (from Old English) or to the acoustic (from Greek), auditory (from Latin), aural (from Latin), or auricular (from Latin) sense. One can make clothing from cloth (from Old English), fabric (from Latin), material (from Latin), or textiles (from Latin). The reason for choosing one of these words over another is frequently stylistic: one may prefer a simpler or a more complex word; one may prefer a more formal or a less formal term. However, the fact that these words share a denotation makes them synonymous and available as substitutes for words one has in mind so that one can be more precise, express oneself more colorfully, or avoid repetition.

Lyons (1981:148) distinguishes between two kinds of synonymy, i.e. what he callscomplete and absolute synonymy. He defines them as follows: “ …lexemes can be said to be completely synonymous (in a certain range of contexts) if and only if they have the same descriptive, expressive and social meaning (in the range of contexts in questions). They may be described as absolutely synonymous if and only if they have the same distribution and are completely synonymous in all their meanings and in all their contexts of occurance.”

He says that complete synonymy is rare, and absolute synonymy hardly exists. If absolute synonymy exists at all, it is merely in very special contexts such as scientific terms (e.g. almonds and tonsils). But what happens when we have two absolute synonyms is that specialists or speakers in general tend to use one of the two synonymous words and agree that the chosen word should be always used to refer to the concept they are describing.

What about absolute synonymy, that is, according to Cruse (1986) where all contextual relations between the two terms are identical. Roughly speaking this means that in all linguistic contexts, the two terms are interchangeable without any difference in meaning. Given the difficulty of ascertaining the respective behavior of two candidate absolute synonyms in all contexts, Cruse (ibid.) suggests the normality test as a way of determining the absence of absolute synonymy. This test shows that one of the two terms is normal in a given context, and the other less normal. (1) He told me the match starts at 8.00 (+ normal) (2) He told me the match commences at 8.00 (- normal) 4

If we add (3), however, and compare it with (1) it is difficult to attribute greater normality to one or the other: (3)He told me the match begins at 8.00

Cruse (ibid.) rules out the use of contexts where one term is odd in syntactic terms, suggesting the context should provide a level playing field in order to ascertain normality. If this is the case, one would have to go a long way to find two contexts where begin and start could be seen to be non-absolute synonyms. Furthermore Cruse also rules out the use of ‘irrelevant senses’ of a word form. (4) Arthur’s most recent car is an old one (+) (5) Arthur’s most recent car is a former one (-) (6) He had more responsibility in his old job (7) He had more responsibility in his former job. Cruse’s (ibid.) normality test works well if we wish to show with the least amount of contextual investigation that two words are not absolute synonyms. It is more difficult to show that two words are in fact absolute synonyms.

Palmer (1981) differentiates between synonyms in five ways. First, some synonyms belong to different dialects of the language. For instance, the word fall is used in the United States and autumn is used in Britain. Second, some synonyms are used in different styles according to the degree of formality; colloquial, formal. For instance, gentleman (formal), man, chap. Thirdly, some words differ only in their emotive or evaluative values but their cognitive meaning is the same. For instance, hide, conceal. Fourthly, some word are subject to collocational restraints, i.e. they occur only with specific words. For instance, rancid occurs with butter, addled with eggs. Fifthly, the meanings of some words overlap. For instance, mature, adult, ripe. If we take each of these words we will have a larger set of synonyms. Palmer suggests a test for synonymy by substituting one word for another. Because absolute synonyms are mutually interchangeable in all contexts, that is why absolute synonyms are very rare in language. Another way to test synonymy is using antonyms. For instance, superficial is the opposite of deep and profound, while shallow is the opposite of deep only. When we use language for the purpose of communication, we come to perceive any expression as a tool more or less suitable for our purposes, we come to see it as possessing a certain value. (The task of an expression may, in a particular case, be seen as representing an object, as being a name, in such a case its value may possibly be identified with the object. But this would be quite a special case.) Expressions which are usable to the same effect have equal values, they are equivalent, and synonymy is primarily just this kind of equivalence.

CHAPTER II I. Classification of Synonyms 5

According to whether the difference is in denotational or connotational component synonyms are classified into ideographic and stylistic. Ideographic synonyms denote different shades of meaning or different degrees of a given quality. They are nearly identical in one or more denotational meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts, e.g. beautiful - fine - handsome –pretty. Beautiful conveys, for instance, the strongest meaning; it marks the possession of that quality in its fullest extent, while the other terms denote the possession of it in part only. Fineness, handsomeness and prettiness are to beauty as parts to a whole. In the synonymic group: choose, select, opt, elect, pick, the word choose has the most general meaning, the others are characterised by differences clearly stated: select implies a wide choice of possibilities (select a Christmas present for a child), opt implies an alternative (either this, or that as in Fewer students are opting for science courses nowadays); pick often implies collecting and keeping for future use (pick new words), elect implies choosing by vote (elect a president; elect smb (to be) chairman). Stylistic synonyms differ not so much in denotational as in emotive value or stylistic sphere of application. Literary language often uses poetic words, archaisms as stylistic alternatives of neutral words, e.g. maid for girl, bliss for happiness, steed for horse, quit for leave. Calling and vocation in the synonymic group occupation, calling, vocation, business are high-flown as compared to occupation and business. In many cases a stylistic synonym has an element of elevation in its meaning, e.g. face - visage, girl - maiden. Along with elevation of meaning there is the reverse process of degradation: to begin - to fire away, to eat - to devour, to steal - to pinch, face - muzzle. According to the criterion of interchangeability in context synonyms are classified intototal, relativeandcontextual. Total synonyms are those members of a synonymic group which can replace each other in any given context, without the slightest alteration in denotative meaning or emotional meaning and connotations. They are very rare. Examples can be found mostly in special literature among technical terms and others, e.g. fatherland motherland, suslik - gopher, noun - substantive, functional affix - flection, inflection, scarlet fever scarlatinaRelative Synonyms. Some authors class groups like ask - beg - implore, or like - love - adore, gift -talent - genius, famous - celebrated- eminent as relative synonyms, as they denote different degree of the same notion or different shades of meanings and can be substituted only in some contexts. Contextual or context - dependent synonyms are similar in meaning only under some specific distributional conditions. It may happen that the difference between the meanings of two words is contextually neutralised , E.g. buy and get would not generally be taken as synonymous, but they are synonyms in the following examples: I'll go to the shop and buy some bread. I'll go to the shop and get some bread. The verbs bear, suffer, stand are semantically different and not interchangeable except when used in the negative form: I can't stand it, I can't bear it. One of the sources of synonymy is borrowing. Synonymy has its characteristic patterns in each language. Its peculiar feature in English is the contrast between simple native words stylistically neutral, literary words borrowed from French and learned words of Greco-Latin origin. Native English: to ask, to end, to rise, teaching, belly. French Borrowings: to question, to finish, to mount, guidance, stomach. Latin borrowings: to interrogate, to complete, to ascend, 6

instruction, abdomen. There are also words that came from dialects, in the last hundred years, from American English, in particular, e.g. long distance call AE - trunk call BE, radio AE - wireless BE. Synonyms are also created by means of all word - forming processes productive in the language. Synonymic differentiation. It must be noted that synonyms may influence each other semantically in two diametrically opposite ways: one of them is dissimilation or differentiation, the other is the reverse process , i.e. assimilation. Many words now marked in the dictionaries as "archaic" or "obsolete" have dropped out of the language in the competition of synonyms, others survived with a meaning more or less different from the original one. This process is called synonymic differentiation and is so current that is regarded as an inherent law of language development. The development of the synonymic group land has been studied by A.A. Ufimtseva. When in the 13 century soil was borrowed from French into English its meaning was "a strip of land". OE synonyms eorpe, land, foldement "the upper layer of earth in which plants grow". Now, if two words coincide in meaning and use, the tendency is for one of them to drop out of the language. Folde became identical to eorpe and in the fight for survival the letter won. The polysemantic word land underwent an intense semantic development in a different direction and so dropped out of this synonymic series. It was natural for soil to fill this lexical gap and become the main name for the notion "the mould in which plants grow". The noun earth retained this meaning throughout its history whereas the word ground, in which this meaning was formerly absent, developed it. As a result this synonymic group comprises at present soil, earth, ground. The assimilation of synonyms consists in parallel development. This law was discovered and described by G. Stern, H.A. Treble and G.H. Vallins in their book "An ABC of English Usage", Oxford, 1957, p. 173 give as examples the pejorative meanings acquired by the nouns wench, knave and churl which originally ment "girl", "boy", and "labourer" respectively, and point out that this loss of old dignity became linguistically possible because there were so many synonymous words of similar meaning. As the result all the three words underwent degradation in their meanings: wench - indecent girl knave - rascal churl - country man. Synonyms are classified also in: 1. Absolute Synonymy Absolute synonymy means, that a pair of lexemes is absolutely interchangeable in all imaginable contexts and that they have the same ratio of distribution. The first aspect means, that for two lexical items a andb, if they are to be recognized as absolute synonyms, a has to be normal in a context in which b is normal and b has to be completely abnormal in a context in which a is. This requirement is passed by very few pairs. The following test gives evidence for this (`+′ indicates "more normal"; `-` indicates "less normal"): 1a smoke vs. fume I′m going to smoke a cigarette. (+) I′m going to fume a cigarette. (-) 1b big vs. large 7

He is a big boy. (+) He is a large boy. (-) 1c knock vs. cream He knocked him unconscious. (+) He creamed him unconscious. (-) 1d almost vs. nearly She looks almost Chinese. (+) She looks nearly Chinese. (-) 2. Complete Synonymy Let us take a look at the pair almost and nearly again. As it was shown before, this pair can′t qualify as absolute synonyms. But in several contexts they seem to be completely interchangeable. 2a I′ve almost succeeded in winning the race. I′ve nearly succeeded in winning the race. 2b He almost made me cry. He nearly made me cry. All these examples show us, that there are pairs of lexemes which are obviously more synonymous than others. This leads us to the assumption of a scale of synonymy. But to determine a scale, we need at least one fixed end point. Since we already presumed that absolute synonymy is very hard to show if not impossible, the endpoint has to be zero-synonymy. But zero-synonymy is no unitary concept. The first point is cheap vs. expensive and white vs. fast are surely no synonyms but for different reasons. And the second thing is that it is impractical to draw a line between synonymy and zero-synonymy. creep vs. crawl; creep vs. cringe; creep vs. sneak; creep vs. grovel; creep vs. toady. Where in the aforementioned example ends synonymy and begins zero-synonymy? The scale is therefore impossible to establish. 3. Cognitive Synonymy Cognitive synonymy (sometimes called descriptive synonymy, referential synonymy or propositional synonymy) is a special relation between at least two lexemes. Examples of cognitive synonymy are: fade, die, decease, nibble off, kick the bucket. These expressions can all be used in the same context without changing the truth-conditions of a sentence. They are however no absolute synonyms because the distribution is not the same for all of those lexemes. There are apparently social taboos, which prevent them from being absolute synonyms. Imagine the judge in court speaking of nibble off instead of die. Even the membership to a particular social group can be deduced by the use of certain words instead of others. Another example of cognitive synonymy is: This ice cream tastes good. Mmmh. 8

The content of these utterances perceived in the same way. The difference is in the way in which they are expressed. The first sentence in this example gives us the information in semantic means. The message is delivered through the meaning of words. This is called propositional mode. The second utterance conveys its meaning through an expression and is therefore called expressional mode. 4. Plesionyms Plesionyms, or near synonyms, are words, that are almost synonyms. They are distinguished from cognitive synonyms by the fact, that the connotations of the pairs are different and therefore they yield different truth conditions in a given context. XY was freedom fighter. XY was a terrorist. These sentences have different truth conditions, though they are referring to the same subject. The It was misty last Friday or, more exactly, it was foggy. It was foggy last Friday or, more exactly, it was misty. In this example it is shown, that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the two truth conditions. Both sentences are referring to the same thing, but they seem to exclude each other, though it is impossible to tell what the difference in the truth condition may be. This hints to the assumption that plesionyms rely much more on personal impressions than on actual states of reality. Though there is a difference between the lexemes foggy and misty, this difference exists only in connotation and the speakers expressed attitude. Other examples point to that observation. We weren′t clobbered, we were battered. We weren′t battered, we were clobbered. I was not ravished, I was delighted. I was not delighted, I was ravished. II. Philosophical View of Synonymy Language is “subordinated” to spoken language, and spoken language is “subordinated” to mental language. The terms of mental language are concepts, its propositions are mental judgments. Whereas the signification of terms in spoken and written language is purely conventional and can be changed, hence in English we say ‘dog’ whereas in Latin it is ‘canis’), the signification of terms (concepts) in mental language is established by nature once and for all. Concepts “naturally signify” what they are concepts of, this “natural signification” is thought of as a kind of representation relation, based on the fact that concepts are in some way “naturally similar” to their objects. This arrangement provides an account of synonymy and equivocation in spoken and written language. Two terms (whether from the same or different spoken/written languages) are synonymous if and only if they are subordinated to the same concept, a single given term of spoken/written language is equivocal if and only if it is subordinated to more than one concept simultaneously.

9

III. Synonymy Between Sentences

Certain traditional accounts of sentence-meaning make it impossible for sentences differing in syntactic form to be synonymous. At first it seems unlikely that sentences with different syntactic forms could be synonymous. One need not reflect much on the individual words to realize that these two sentences are not synonymous: (1) Honesty is the best policy. (2) No one jumps higher than Mike. Two sentences are synonymous when they have the same meaning. It is of course still a matter of debate as to whether the “meaning of a sentence” is itself a something: a “proposition” or other abstract, intentional entity, or whether the notion of “having the same meaning” can be explicated in some more nominalist fashion. However, I shall make certain assumptions about meaning and synonymy. Firstly, as should already be clear, by synonymy here I mean not merely sameness of reference or denotation, but sameness of sense or intension, assuming any such distinction exists. Secondly, I assume that synonymy is an equivalence relation, and hence reflexive, symmetric and transitive. Lastly, I shall speak of synonymy as if it is a relation between sentences. This overall approach can be summed up as follows: within a given language, beginning with a given sentence, it is possible to obtain any synonymous sentence by a number of synonym-for-synonym replacements among the parts. According to Carnap (1956: 59), synonymy of sentences requires “intensional isomorphism”. For a simple sign, all that is required for it to be synonymous with another is that it have the same intension, which amounts to having the same extension necessarily. In the case of complex expressions, what is required is that each constituent sign of the one expression be synonymous with the corresponding constituent of the other. Evidently, in order for there even to be an appropriate corresponding expression for each constituent of the original, the two must have the same syntactic structure. A given syntactically simple sign may be introduced as synonymous with a syntactically complex expression. For example, “bachelor” may be introduced as synonymous with “adult, unmarried male”. Consider: (3) Ahmad is a bachelor. (4) Ahmad is an adult, unmarried male. While these do not have precisely the same syntactic form, it is still possible to obtain one from the other by replacing synonyms. However, this still leaves out certain cases of pairs of sentences that intuitively seem synonymous. Consider: (5) Nuha loves Samer. (6) Samer is loved by Nuha. Such switches from actives to passives, or vice-versa, are often given as paradigmatic examples of sentences that despite surface differences, have the same meaning or express the same proposition. 10

CHAPTER III I. The Productivity of Synonymy "The productivity of synonymy is clearly observable. If we invent a new word that represents (to some extent) the same thing that an existing word in the language represents, then the new word is automatically a synonym of the older word. For example, every time a new slang term meaning 'automobile' is invented, a synonym relation is predicted for the new slang term (say, ride) and the standard and slang terms that already exist (car, auto, wheels, etc.). Ride does not need to be inducted as a member of the synonym set--no one has to say 'ride means the same thing as car' in order for the synonym relation to be understood. All that must happen is that ride must be used and understood to mean the same thing as car--as in My new ride is a Honda." (M. Lynne Murphy, Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 2003) II. SOURCES OF SYNONYMY The distinction between synchronic and diachronic treatment is so fundamental that it cannot be overemphasised, but the two aspects: 1 Idiolect — language as spoken by one individual. It is therefore essential after the descriptive analysis of synonymy in present-day English to take up the historical line of approach and discuss the origin of synonyms and the causes of their abundance in English. The majority of those who studied synonymy in the past have been cultivating both lines of approach without keeping them scrupulously apart, and focused their attention on the prominent part of foreign loan words in English synonymy, e. g. freedom : : liberty or heaven : : sky, where the first elements are native and the second, French and Scandinavian respectively. O. Jespersen and many others used to stress that the English language is peculiarly rich in synonyms, because Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes and Normans fighting and settling upon the soil of the British Isles could not but influence each other’s speech. British scholars studied Greek and Latin and for centuries used Latin as a medium for communication on scholarly topics. Synonymy has its characteristic patterns in each language. Its peculiar feature in English is the contrast between simple native words stylistically neutral, literary words borrowed from French and learned words of GrecoLatin origin. This results in a sort of stylistically conditioned triple “keyboard” that can be illustrated by the following: Native English words Words borrowed from French Words borrowed from Latin to ask to question to interrogate belly stomach abdomen to gather to assemble to collect empty devoid vacuous to end to finish to complete to rise to mount to ascend teaching guidance instruction English also uses many pairs of synonymous derivatives, the one Hellenic and the other Romance, e. g. periphery-circumference; hypothesis - supposition; sympathy - compassion; synthesis - composition. 11

The pattern of stylistic relationship represented in the above table, although typical, is by no means universal. For example, the native words dale, deed, fair are the poetic equivalents of their much more frequent borrowed synonyms valley, act or the hybrid beautiful. This subject of stylistic differentiation has been one of much controversy in recent years. It is universally accepted, however, that semantic and stylistic properties may change and synonyms which at one time formed a stylistic opposition only may in the course of time become ideographically cognitively contrasted as well, and vice versa. It would be linguistically naive to maintain that borrowing results only in quantitative changes or that qualitative changes are purely stylistical. The introduction of a borrowed word almost invariably starts some alteration both in the newcomer and in the semantic structure of existing words that are close to it in meaning. When in the 13th century the word soil was borrowed into English its meaning was ‘a strip of land’. The upper layer of earth in which plants grow had been denoted since Old English by one of the synonyms: ground. The development of the group has been studied by A.A. Ufimtseva. All these words had land,fied,ground, other central meanings so that the meaning in question was with them secondary. Now, if two words coincide in meaning and use, the tendency is for one of them to drop out of the language. Folde had the same function and meaning as eorþe and in the fight for survival the latter won. The polysemantic word land underwent an intense semantic development in a different direction but dropped out of this synonym series. In this way it became quite natural for soil to fill the obvious lexical gap, receive its present meaning and become the main name for the corresponding notion, i.e. ‘the mould in which plants grow’. The noun earth retained this meaning throughout its history, whereas the word ground in which this meaning was formerly absent developed it. As a result this synonymic group comprises at present soil, earth and ground. The fate of the word folde is not at all infrequent. Many other words now marked in the dictionaries as “archaic” or “obsolete” have dropped out in the same competition of synonyms; others survived with a meaning more or less removed from the original one. The process is called synonyms differentiation and is so current that M. Bréal regarded it as an inherent law of language development. It must be noted that synonyms may influence each other semantically in two diametrically opposite ways: one of them is dissimilation, the other the reverse process, i.e. assimilation. The assimilation of synonyms consists in parallel development. This law was discovered and described by G. Stern. H.A. Trebe and G.H. Vallins give as examples the pejorative meanings acquired by the nouns wench, knave and churl which originally meant ‘girl’, ‘boy’ and ‘labourer’ respectively, and point out that this loss of old dignity became linguistically possible, because there were so many synonymous terms at hand. The important thing to remember is that it is not only borrowings from foreign languages but other sources as well that have made increasing contributions to the stock of English synonyms. There

12

are, for instance, words that come from dialects, and, in the last hundred years, from American English in particular. As a result speakers of British English may make use of both elements of the following pairs, the first element in each pair coming from the USA: gimmick : : trick; dues : : subscription; long distance (telephone) call : : trunk call; radio : : wireless. There are also synonyms that originate in numerous dialects as, for instance, clover : : shamrock; liquor : : whiskey (from Irish); girl : : lass, lassie or charm : : glamour (from Scottish). The role of borrowings should not be overestimated. Synonyms are also created by means of all word-forming processes productive in the language at a given time of its history. The words already existing in the language develop new meanings. New words may be formed by affixation or loss of affixes, by conversion, compounding, shortening and so on, and being coined, form synonyms to those already in use. 205 http://angli4anka.at.ua Of special importance for those who are interested in the present-day trends and characteristic peculiarities of the English vocabulary are the synonymic oppositions due to shift of meaning, new combinations of verbs with postpositives and compound nouns formed from them, shortenings, set expressions and conversion. Phrasal verbs consisting of a verb with a postpositive are widely used in present-day English and may be called one of its characteristic features. Many verbal synonymic groups contain such combinations as one of their elements. A few examples will illustrate this statement: choose : : pick out; abandon : : give up; continue : : go on; enter : : come in; lift : : pick up; postpone : : put off; quarrel : : fall out; return : : bring back. E.g.: By the way, Toby has quite given up the idea of doing those animal cartoons (Plomer). The vitality of these expressions is proved by the fact that they really supply material for further word-formation. Very many compound nouns denoting abstract notions, persons and events are correlated with them, also giving ways of expressing notions hitherto named by somewhat lengthy borrowed terms. There are, for instance, such synonymic pairs as arrangement : : layout; conscription : : call-up; precipitation : : fall-out; regeneration : : feedback; reproduction : : playback; resistance : : fight-back; treachery : : sell-out. An even more frequent type of new formations is that in which a noun with a verbal stem is combined with a verb of generic meaning (have, give, take, get, make) into a set expression which differs from the simple verb in aspect or emphasis: laugh - give a laugh; sigh - give a sigh; walk -take a walk; smoke - have a smoke; love - fall in love. E.g.: Now we can all have a good read with our coffee (Simpson). N.N. Amosova stresses the patterned character of the phrases in question, the regularity of connection between the structure of the phrase and the resulting semantic effect. She also points out that there may be cases when phrases of this pattern have undergone a shift of meaning and turned into phraseological units quite different in meaning from and not synonymical with the verbs of the same root. This is the case with give a lift, give somebody quite a turn, etc. Quite 13

frequently synonyms, mostly stylistic, but sometimes ideographic as well, are due to shortening, e. g. memorandum - memo; vegetables - vegs; margarine - marge; microphone - mike; popular (song) - pop (song). One should not overlook the fact that conversion may also be a source of synonymy; it accounts for such pairs as commandment – command, laughter - laugh. The problem in this connection is whether such cases should be regarded as synonyms or as lexical variants of one and the same word. It seems more logical to consider them as lexical variants. Compare also cases of different affixation: anxiety - anxiousness; effectivity - effectiveness, and loss of affixes: amongst -among or await- wait. III. Synonyms and synonymic sets Synonyms are usually defined as words similar in meaning; as words that express the same idea but it is wrong to say that synonyms are identical in meaning since the range of the idea they express may be very wide. In comparing synonyms we are mostly interested in their difference than in their similarity, although the latter is also of importance. English is very rich in synonyms. There are about 8000 synonymic groups in English. A group of synonyms is called a synonymic set, e.g. famous, celebrated, renowned, illustriousmay make a synonymic set.Apolysemantic word may enter as many synonymic groups as it has lexical semantic variants, e.g. the word “fresh” goes into 5 synonymic sets:Fresh – original – novel – striking – up-to-dateFresh – another – different – new Fresh – impertinent – rude Each synonymic set has a word, which expresses the most general idea and holds a commanding position over other words – it is called the synonymic dominant. For instance in the series to leave – to depart – to quit – to retire – to clear outthe word “to leave” is general and neutral and can stand for each of the other four terms being the synonymic dominant of this group. Thus the synonymic dominant is the most general word belonging to the general stock of words stylistically neutral, of greater frequency and of widest colloqability. Synonyms are grouped according to their similarity in their meaning and are contrasted within a group on a principle of dissimilation,e.g. weak, feeble, powerless. In traditional linguistics synonyms are defined on basis of the notional criteria; according to it synonyms are words of the same category of parts of speech conveying the same notion but differing either in shades of meaning or in stylistic characteristics. This definition was given by Russian academician Vinogradov. The definition of synonyms based on the semantic criteria runs as follows: “Lexical synonyms are different words of the same part of speech (having the same grammatical distribution) which have some common denotational components in their semantic structure but differ either in some denotational components and/or in some connotational 14

components and thus usually have different lexical colloqability.” This definition was given by Pr. Elena BorisovnaCherkasskaya. In modern research of synonyms the criteria of interchangeability is sometimes applied. According to this, synonyms are defined as words, which are interchangeable at least in some context without any considerable alteration in denotational meaning. The application of these criteria is limited due to the differences in the semantic components of meanings of synonyms leading to the differences in their colloqability. In fact all the definitions of synonyms are opened criticism and further perfection.!Functions of synonyms in speech.Synonyms have 3 main functions in speech: 1The function of substitution in order to avoid repetition and monotony 2The function of précising in meaning in order to reach a greater accuracy and avoid vagueness. 3The expressive stylistic function,e.g. clean (free from dirt) – neat (clean and tidy) – trim (in good order, neat and spruce) – spruce (neat, trim and smart) IV. Examples and Observations: "The phenomenon of synonymy is a central interest for both the semanticist and the language learner. For the former, synonymy is an important member of the theoretical set of logical relations existing in language. For the latter, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that vocabulary is often best acquired by analogy, in other words, remembered as being similar in meaning to previously acquired forms . . .. In addition, what we might term 'definition through synonym' is a central feature of most dictionary organisation (Ilson 1991: 294-6). For motives of stylistic variation, non-native learners and translators have a pressing need to find lexical alternatives to express a particular concept, especially in writing. Harvey &Yuill (1994) found that searches for synonyms accounted for over 10% of dictionary consultations when learners were engaged in a writing task. However, given the rarity of absolute synonymy, learners also need to know which of the particular synonyms given by dictionaries and thesauruses

is

the

most

suitable

for

any

given

context."

(Alan Partington, Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. John Benjamins, 1998)

CHAPTER IV. 15

CONCLUSIONS: 1.

Language is a system of formal relations. This means that the key to understanding the

structure of the system lies in difference. Difference might be a function of contrast or opposition, the idea is that nothing in and of itself has meaning. Meaning is a function of some relationship. 2. Synonyms (Greek sundnumon, from syn - “together, with”, onoma - “name”) can be defined as two or more words of the same language, belonging to the same part of speech and possessing one or more identical or nearly identical denotative meanings, but different in morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, style and idiomatic use. 3.Synonyms can be nouns, adverbs or adjectives, as long as both members of the pair are of the same part of speech. Traditionally, synonymy can only hold between words, and, more precisely, between words belonging to the same part of speech; for example: ‘enormous’ = ‘huge’; ‘gaze’ = ‘stare’. 4. Given the complexity of meaning, a person searching for an alternative word must be sure that the synonym chosen is accurate and precise. In its strict sense, a synonym is a word with a meaning identical or very similar to that of another word. 5.Synonymy has its characteristic patterns in each language. Its peculiar feature in English is the contrast between simple native words stylistically neutral, literary words borrowed from French and learned words of Greco-Latin origin. Native English: to ask, to end, to rise, teaching, belly. French Borrowings: to question, to finish, to mount, guidance, stomach. Latin borrowings: to interrogate, to complete, to ascend, instruction, abdomen. There are also words that came from dialects, in the last hundred years, from American English, in particular, e.g. long distance call AE - trunk call BE, radio AE - wireless BE. 6.Absolute synonymy means, that a pair of lexemes is absolutely interchangeable in all imaginable contexts and that they have the same ratio of distribution. 1a smoke vs. fume I′m going to smoke a cigarette. (+) I′m going to fume a cigarette. (-) Complete Synonymy Let us take a look at the pair almost and nearly again. As it was shown before, this pair can′t qualify as absolute synonyms. But in several contexts they seem to be completely interchangeable. I′ve almost succeeded in winning the race. I′ve nearly succeeded in winning the race. Cognitive synonymy (sometimes called descriptive synonymy, referential synonymy or propositional synonymy) is a special relation between at least two lexemes. Examples of cognitive synonymy are: fade, die, decease, nibble off, kick the bucket. 7. Two terms (whether from the same or different spoken/written languages) are synonymous if and only if they are subordinated to the same concept, a single given term of spoken/written language is equivocal if and only if it is subordinated to more than one concept simultaneously. 16

8."The productivity of synonymy”is clearly observable. If we invent a new word that represents (to some extent) the same thing that an existing word in the language represents, then the new word is automatically a synonym of the older word. For example, every time a new slang term meaning 'automobile' is invented, a synonym relation is predicted for the new slang term (say, ride) and the standard and slang terms that already exist (car, auto, wheels, etc.). 9.Functions of synonyms in speech . Synonyms have 3 main functions in speech: 1The function of substitution in order to avoid repetition and monotony 2The function of précising in meaning in order to reach a greater accuracy and avoid vagueness. 3The expressive stylistic function,e.g. clean (free from dirt) – neat (clean and tidy) – trim (in good order, neat and spruce) – spruce (neat, trim and smart) 10.

"The phenomenon of synonymy is a central interest for both the semanticist and the

language learner. For the former, synonymy is an important member of the theoretical set of logical relations existing in language. For the latter, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that vocabulary is often best acquired by analogy, in other words, remembered as being similar in meaning to previously acquired forms . . ..

17

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Cruse, D.A. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986; 2. Cruse, Alan. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: University Press 3. Christiano, Marilyn Rice. Words and their stories. S.I.: VOA Special English. 2001; 4. Donna Jo Napoli. Linguistics – an introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.1996; 5. Gogu, Tamara. Semantic groups of words. Chișinău. 2008; 6. Jackson, H. Words and Their Meaning. London: Longman Inc. 1988; 7. John I. Saeed. Semantics. Blackwell Publishing. Second edition. 1925; 8. Lyons, John. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vol. 1. 1979; 9. L'Homme, Marie-Claude. Why Lexical Semantics is Important for e-Lexicography and Why it is Equally Important to Hide its Formal Representations from Users of Dicționaries. Marea Britanie. 2014.

18

Summary CHAPTER I I. Introduction to synonyms II. The definition of sinonymy III. The Concept of Synonymy in English

CHAPTER II I. Classification of Synonyms II. Philosophical View of Synonymy III. Synonymy Between Sentences

CHAPTER III I. The Productivity of Synonymy II. Sources of Synonymy III. Synonyms and synonymic sets IV. Examples and Observations

CHAPTER IV. Conclusions:

CHAPTER V. BIibliography

19

Exercises Match each word with a synonym: 1. Often

a) old man

2. Look for

b)kid

3. Adult

c) happy

4. Phone

d) annoyed

5. Begin

e) sometimes

6. Child

f) verify

7. Scared

g) frequently

8. Enormous

h) astoundede

9. Check

i) huge

10.Angry

j) fear k) worst l) start m) afraid n) search o) discover p) ring q) grown-up

20

Choose the correct synonym of the word from the four options: 1. He is fast runner. quick

slow

energetic calm 3. Have you looked at the invoice? Pen

bill

2. I am terrible at mathematics. good awful

5. He never comes on time.

4. Do you think I am stupid?

cheap

goes

arrives

expensive

blaring catchy

9. He has a big house. small

tiny

large

great

fast

6. This toy is inexpensive.

does

7. The music is loud.

intelligent

brilliant

sees

pleasant

fantastic

dumb

Sheet paper

soft

great

over priced good

8. I require three big boxes. need

threw

found

got

10. My girlfriend is very pretty. ugly beautiful

strange stupid

21