Synonymy

Lexical units may be classified by the criterion of semantic similarity and semantic contrasts. Such lexemes are either synonyms or antonyms. Synonyms (Greek ‘same’ + ‘name’) are traditionally defined as words similar or equivalent (identical) in meanings. This definition is open to criticism and requires clarification. Synonymy, as D.N. Shmelyov puts it, begins with total identity of word meanings of lexemes relating to one and the same object, and passes through various gradations of semantic affinity to expressing differences in lexical meanings, so that it is difficult to decide whether the words similar in meanings are synonyms or not.

Investigating the problems of synonymy Yu.D.Apresyan considers that the objective difficulties in analysing synonyms stem from the fact that the existing criteria are not sufficient to distinguish synonyms [Апресян 1957: 85].

Linguists point out two main criteria of synonymy: 1) equivalence or similarity of meaning (e.g. pleasure, delight, joy, enjoyment, merriment, hilarity, mirth); 2) interchangeability in a number of contexts, e.g. I’m thankful (grateful) to you. It is a hard (difficult) problem.

However, these criteria are not reliable enough for distinguishing synonyms. First of all it is not clear what degree of similarity is sufficient to determine synonymy. Secondly, one should distinguish both identity and similarity of referents and meanings. One and the same referent might be identified by words which are not synonyms (e.g. оne and the same person can be named mother, wife, daughter, doctor, etc).

It should be noted concerning the criterion of interchangeability that there is little number of lexemes interchangeable in all the contexts. Words broad and wide are very close in meaning, but they cannot substitute each other in a number of contexts, e.g. in the contexts broad daylight, broad accent the substitution of broad by wide is impossible.It is difficult to say how many interchangeable contexts are enough to speak of synonymy.

L.M. Vasilyev writes that synonyms are identified according to their lexical meaning and all their denotational grammatical meanings excluding syntactical meanings; synonyms might differ in other components of their content: conceptual, expressive, stylistic [Васильев 1967].

D.N.Shmelyov gives the following definition of synonyms: “Synonyms may be defined as words belonging to the same part of speech, their meanings have identical components, and differing components of their meanings steadily neutralize in certain positions, i.e. synonyms are words which differ only in such components which are insignificant in certain contexts of their usage” [Шмелев 1977: 196].

N.Webster’ definition is close to the previous one: “in the narrowest sense a synonym may be defined as a word that affirms exactly the meaning of a word with which it is synonymous... Words are considered to be synonyms if in one or more of their senses they are interchangeable without significant alteration of denotation but not necessarily without shifts in peripheral aspects of meaning (as connotations and implications)” [Webster, 1973].

It is erroneous to speak of synonymy of words or lexemes as such, as this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words. Each meaning (LSV) of a polysemantic word has its own synonymic set, for example, LSV1 of the word party is synonymous with words gathering, social, fun: ‘Are you coming to our party?’; LSV 2 is synonymous with group, company, crowd: ‘A party of tourists saw the sights of London’; LSV 3 is synonymous with block, faction, body, organization: You don’t have to join a political party to vote in an election.

Secondly, if we take into account that lexical meaning falls into denotational and connotational components, it follows that we cannot speak of similarity or equivalence of these two components of meanings. It is only the denotational component may be described as identical or similar. If we analyse words that are considered synonyms, e.g. to leave (neutral) and to desert (formal or poetic) or insane (formal) and loony (informal), etc., we find that the connotational component or, to be more exact, the stylistic reference of these words is entirely different and it is only the similarity of the denotational meaning that makes them synonymous. Taking into account the above-mentioned considerations the compilers of the book “A Course in Modern English Lexicology” R.S.Ginzburg and others formulate the definition of synonyms as follows: “synonyms are words different in sound form but similar in their denotational meaning or meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts [p.58].”

Differentiation of synonyms may be observed in different semantic components - denotational and connotational. Linguists (W.E.Collinson, D.Crystal, Yu.D.Apresyan) point out differences in the denotational component, e.g. one word has a more general meaning than another: to refuse, to reject; differences in the connotational component, e.g. one word is more emotional than another: youth and youngster are both synonyms but youths are less pleasant than youngsters, or one word is more intense than another, e.g. to repudiate vs. to reject, one word contains evaluative connotation: stringy, niggard (negative – ‘mean, spending, using or giving unwillingly; miserly’) while the other is neutral: economical, thrifty. Differences in connotational meaning also include stylistic differences: one word is formal, e.g. parent while another is neutral father or informal dad; there may be a dialect difference: butcher and flesher (Scots)Synonyms differ in collocation: rancid and rotten are synonyms, but the former is used only of butter or bacon while the latter collocates with a great number of nouns, and frequency of occurrence: turn down is more frequently used than refuse.

It should be noted that the difference in denotational meaning cannot exceed certain limits. There must be a certain common or integral component of denotational meaning in a synonymic set. Componential analysis of word meaning enables linguists to distinguish integral and differential components of synonymous words. Differential components show what synonyms differ in, if compared with one another. For instance, synonyms: to leave, to abandon, to desert, to forsake have an integral component ‘to go away’. The verb to abandon is marked by a differential component ‘not intending to return’, to desert (informal or poetic) means ‘leaving without help or support, especially in a wrong or cruel way’, to forsake presupposes ‘irrevocable breaking away from some place, people, habits, etc., severing all emotional and intellectual contacts’. There is a great variety of differential components. They denote various properties, qualities of nominated objects; they express positive and negative evaluation.

Academician V.V.Vinogradov worked out the follow classification of synonyms which is based on differences between synonyms:

1) ideographic synonyms which differ to some extent in the denotational meaning and collocation, e.g. both to understand and to realize refer to the same notion but the former reflects a more concrete situation: to understand sb’s words but to realize one’s error. Ideographic synonyms belong to one and the same, usually neutral stylistic layer.

2) stylistic synonyms - words similar or identical in meaning but referring to different stylistic layers, e.g. to expire (formal) - to die (neutral) - to kick the bucket (informal, slang).

3) absolute (complete)synonyms are identical in meaning and interchangeable in all the contexts. T.I.Arbekova gives the following examples of perfect synonyms: car - automobile, jail - gaol - prison, to begin - to start, to finish - to end [Арбекова 1977: 22]. There is much controversy on the issue of existence of absolute synonyms. The above and other examples seem to be complete synonyms only at a first superficial glance. A more profound analysis proves that such examples differ in certain connotations and collocability. It is assumed that close to absolute synonyms are terms, e.g. fricative and spirants as terms denoting one and the same type of consonants in phonology. However this understanding is also open to criticism [Arnold 1973].

This classification was subject to alterations and additions. Thus, V.A.Zvegintsev considers that there are no non-stylistic synonyms, but there are synonyms stylistically homogeneous (ideographic) and stylistically heterogeneous (stylistic). According to this point of view ideographic synonyms are pairs like excellent - splendid and stunning - topping (colloq. splendid, ravishing) because they are stylistically homogeneous: the first pair are stylistically neutral synonyms, while the second pair are stylistically coloured; if the above words are put together into one synonymic set, they will be stylistic synonyms.

V.A.Zvegintsev considers that the synonymic set face – countenance – mug – puss – smacker (cf. Rus. лицо – лик – морда – рыло – харя) contains stylistic synonyms while the synonyms in the set mug – puss – smacker (cf. Rus. морда – рыло – харя) are ideographic, because the first set contains stylistically heterogeneous lexemes while the second one includes stylistically homogeneous lexemes [Звегинцев 1968]; it follows that one and the same lexeme can be a stylistic synonym in one set of lexemes (face – mug) and ideographic in another set (mug – puss).

According to the authors of “A Course in Modern English Lexicology” R.S. Ginzburg and others, V.V.Vinogradov’s classification cannot be accepted “as synonymous words always differ in the denotational component irrespective of the identity or difference of stylistic reference” [Ginzburg 1979:56-57 ]. For instance, though the verbs see (neutral) and behold (formal, poetic) are usually treated as stylistic synonyms, there could be also observed a marked difference in their denotational meanings. The verb behold suggests only ‘looking at that which is seen’. The verb see is much wider in meaning.

Difference of the connotational semantic component is invariably accompanied by some difference of the denotational meaning of synonyms. Hence, it would be more consistent to subdivide synonymous words into purely ideographic (denotational) and ideographic-stylistic synonyms.

Synonyms are also subdivided into traditional or language synonyms and contextual or speech synonyms. Some words which are not traditionally considered synonyms acquire similarity of meanings in certain contexts due to metaphoric or metonymic transferences. In the sentence ‘She was a chatterer, a magpie ’ the italicized words are not traditional synonyms but the word magpie in this context becomes a synonym to the word chatterer through a metaphoric transference: a magpie-(fig) person who chatters very much. Also in the sentence It was so easy, so simple, so foolproof words easy, simple are traditional language synonyms but foolproof (tech. ‘so simple that it does not require special technical skills or knowledge’) is their contextualsynonym.

There is a special type of synonyms - euphemisms (Greek ‘sound well’). They come into being for reasons of etiquette with the purpose of substitution of vulgar, unpleasant, coarse words by words with milder, more polite connotations. For instance, among synonyms drunk, merry, jolly, intoxicated the last three wordsare euphemisms as they are less offensive than the first one. Euphemisms in various languages are used to denote such notions as death, madness, some physiological processes, diseases, crimes, etc.

Examples of euphemistic synonyms to the verb die are: breathe one’s last, be no more, be gathered to one’s fathers, deep six, give up the ghost, get one’s ticket punched, go belly up, go down the tube, go home in a box, go the way of all flesh, go to one’s last account, go to one’s resting place, go to one’s long home, go north, go west, go to the wall, head for the hearse, head for the last roundup, join the (silent) majority, kick off, kick the bucket, meet one’s maker, meet Mr. Jordan, pay the debt of nature, pass beyond the veil, quit the scene, shuffle off this mortal coil, take the ferry, take the last count, turn up one’s toes; euphemisticsynonyms to the word mad: insane, mentally unstable, unbalanced, unhinged, not (quite) right, not all there, off one’s mind (head, hinges, nut, rocker, track, trolley), wrong(off) in the upper storey, having bats in one’s belfry, cracked, cracked-up crackpot, crazy as a bedbug, cuckoo, cutting out paper dolls, nobody home, lights on but nobody home, nutty, just plain nuts, nutty as a fruitcake, out of one’s mind (brain, skull, gourd, tree), loony, head (mental) case, mental defective, gone ape, minus (missing) some buttons, one sandwich short of picnic, belt doesn’t go through all the loops, section 8, etc;euphemisms synonymous to lavatory: powder room, washroom, restroom, retiring room, (public) comfort station, ladies’ (room), gentlemen’s (room), water-closet, w.c., public conveniences, etc.;, euphemistic synonyms to pregnant: in an interesting condition, in a delicate condition, in the family way, with a baby coming, (big) with child. Looking through the above list of examples one can’t fail to notice that euphemisms include items belonging to formal, neutral, informal registers, even some jocular examples.

Оne of the sources of euphemisms are religious taboos, i.e. as it is forbidden to pronounce God’s name, the word God was substituted by a phonetically similar one goodness: for goodness sake! Goodness gracious! Goodness knows! To religious euphemisms also belong: Jove! Good Lord! By Gum! Тhere is also a taboo concerning the usage of the word devil instead of which deuce, fiend, hellion, the Dickens, Old Nick (Bendy, Blazes, Clootie, Dad, Harry, Horny, Ned, Poker, Scratch, Gentleman, Gooseberry) are used.

The so-called political correctness “p.c.” has become the source of euphemisms in recent years in the U.S.A. and Canada. It is considered politically incorrect to use the word poor instead of which socially underprivileged is used. One should not use words Negroes or blacks but Afro-Americans or Afro-Canadians, not Red Indians but native Americans. Instead of invalids one should say special needs people, pensioners turned into senior citizens, etc.

Synonyms constitute synonymic sets, which include a certain number of synonymous lexemes with a dominant word. A synonymic dominant is a word which represents the integral (invariant) meaning, i.e. the component of meaning common to all the lexemes of a particular synonymic set. Such words are usually stylistically neutral; they have high frequency of occurrence and mostly belong to native English words. The presentation of a synonymic set usually starts with a synonymic dominant: hate, loathe, detest, despise, abominate, abhor. While defining the word’s meaning we usually compare it with the synonymic dominant and only then with other synonyms, e.g. detest – hate strongly (ALD).

The English language is very rich in synonyms. It can be partially explained by intensive borrowing of words from many languages: French, Latin, Greek and others. For instance in the synonymic set with the dominant hate only two lexemes hate and loathe are native English words, others are borrowings from Latin and French. Due to borrowings from these languages there appeared certain synonymic patterns. For instance, a double-scale pattern, where one of the synonyms is a native English word, and another is a Latin borrowing: motherly-maternal, fatherly - paternal, brotherly - fraternal, heavenly - celestial, world -universe, etc.; a triple-scale pattern, where one word is native English, the second one is a French borrowing and the third is borrowed from Latin or Greek: begin - commence - initiate, end - finish - conclude, ask - question - interrogate, etc. In such patterns the first word is stylistically neutral and has a high frequency of usage while others are more formal.

4. Antonymy

The traditional definition of antonyms as lexemes opposite in meaning sounds straightforward and needs clarification. To antonyms belong such pairs of lexemes as love / hate, early /late, unknown / known, etc. The word ‘opposite’ presupposes quite a variety of semantic contrasts: polarity, exclusion, negation of one concept by another, etc. Cf.: kind/cruel where the opposition expresses contradictory notions and kind/unkind where the opposition expresses negation, i.e. unkind means the same as not kind. Hence, antonyms are lexemes characterized by various kinds of contrasts in their denotational meaning. Antonymy refers to very important semantic relations which form a simple type of structure – contrastive multitude [Харитончик 1992: 105].

Different kinds of contrast make it possible to present a semantic classification of antonyms and point out the following types of antonyms:

1. Contradictory antonyms. Here belong such opposites as single/married, first/last, dead/alive, true / false, perfect / imperfect,etc. To use one lexeme of the pair is to contradict the other: to be alive is not to be dead; to be single is not to be married; to use not before one of them is to make it semantically equivalent to the other. The affirmation of one lexeme of the pair implies the negation of the other. When we state that John is single we imply that John is not married. D.Crystal calls such antonyms complementary [Crystal 1995:165]. The items complement each other in their meanings.

2. Contraries, which are also called gradable antonyms [Crystal 1995:165]. These are opposites, such as large/small, happy/sad, wet/dry, cold/hot, young/old, etc. These are items (adjectives) capable of comparison; they do not refer to absolute qualities. We can say that something is very wet or quite dry, or wetter or drier than something else. It is as if there is a scale of wetness/dryness, with wet at one end and dry at the other. Such antonyms presuppose a certain starting point or norm in regard to which a certain degree of quality is ascertained. Adjectives like big/small, old/young, allow different interpretation depending on what object is meant. Compare for instance a small elephant and a big mouse. Each object has its norm of size: the smallest elephant is bigger than the biggest mouse. The negation of a certain quality in case of contraries does not imply the opposite quality: ‘our town is not big ’ does not mean ‘our town is small ’.

Contraries unlike contradictories admit possibilities between them. This is observed in pairs like cold/hot where extreme opposite qualities are expressed. Intermediate members make up pairs cold/warm, hot/cool, warm/cool. Contraries may be opposed to each other by the absence or presence of one of the components of meaning like sex or age: man / woman, man / boy, boy / girl.

3. Incompatibles. Semantic relations of incompatibility exist among antonyms with the common component of meaning and may be described as relation of exclusion but not of contradiction. A set оf words with the common component ‘part of the day’: morning, evening, day, night, afternoon may constitute antonymous pairs based on exclusion: morning/evening, day/night, morning/night, etc. To say morning is to say not afternoon, not evening, not night. The negation of this set does not imply semantic equivalence with the other but excludes the possibility of the other words of this set. Relations of incompatibility are also observed between colour terms. Thus black/white exclude red, green, blue, etc.

4. Conversives orconverse termsare antonyms denoting one and the same referent viewed from different points of view.This type of oppositeness, where one item presupposes the other, is called converseness. Here belong verbs buy/sell, g ive/receive, cause/suffer, win/lose; nouns: teacher/student, doctor/patient, husband/wife, parent/child. These antonyms are mutually dependent on each other. There cannot be a wife without a husband. We cannot buy something without something being sold. Close to conversives are antonyms denoting reverse actions: tie / untie, wind / unwind.

5. Vectorial are antonyms such as over/under, inside/outside, North/South, East/West which denote oppositeness of directions referring to spatial relations, actions. Here belong verbs like come/leave, arrive/depart and also those denoting relations of cause and effect: learn / know, know / forget.

It is obvious that not every lexeme has an antonym. A vast majority of lexemes in the language have no opposites at all. It does not make sense to ask ‘What is the opposite of rainbow? Or of chemistry? Or of sandwich?’ Most antonyms are adjectives which is only natural because qualitative characteristics are easily compared: old – new, strong – weak, easy – difficult, high – low, etc.Verbs take the second place, then come nouns and adverbs.

The other point to note is that we ought to differentiate between oppositeness of concepts and meanings. For instance, big and large are very similar in meaning, as are little and small, but the antonym of little is big, and of large is small. Large is not the antonym of little, even though they are conceptually opposed [Crystal 1995:165].

Antonyms are also differentiated as to their structure. The majority of antonyms are the so-called absolute antonyms which have different stems: love/hate, early/late, clever/stupid, etc. Others formed by addingderivational affixes to the stem are derivational (affixal) antonyms. The affixes in them serve to deny the quality stated in the stem: kind/unkind, moral/amoral, useful/useless.

One should bear in mind that in case of polysemantic antonyms as well as synonyms we cannot speak of antonymy of a lexeme as a whole, as different LSVs havedifferent antonyms: thin 1/thick, (a thin/thick slice of bread), thin 2/fat (a thin/fat man).

Дата добавления: 2015-08-13