What word has no synonyms

Synonymy relates to the topic of semantics, which concerns the study of meaning in language. The term synonymy originates from the Greek words sún and onoma, which mean with and name.

The first sentence uses awful to describe the weather and the second uses terrible. Although both sentences use different words, they have the same meaning: bad. In other words, awful and terrible are synonyms of bad.

To test whether two words are synonyms (or synonymous), we can use a substitution method: if one word can be replaced by another without changing the meaning/sense of the sentence, the two words are synonyms. The opposite of synonymy is antonymy. Synonymy can be found across all parts of speech: in nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc.

Let’s put the synonyms into a sentence and use the substitution method:

1a. You have a big house.

1b. You have a large house.

By substituting big with large, we can keep the sentence’s meaning (the description of the house) in a similar degree/sense as the original sentence.

2a. He had a difficult decision to make.

2b. He had a hard decision to make.

The same as before, the substitution of difficult with hard does not change the sentence’s meaning (the description of the decision).

Synonymy in literature

Instead of repeating the word one kind, Lee chooses its synonym: alike, to relay a similar meaning to ‘very similar’. The same thing happens in the case of stayed shut up in the house and stay inside. Using synonymy, Lee enriches the prose by avoiding repetition while keeping the meaning similar in both cases.

Wake is a synonym of watch. Here, wake means ‘to stay awake to watch or tend’ (Oxford English Dictionary). Notice the slightly richer sense of see in watch compared to wake, yet the two words carry a similar meaning. By adopting synonymy, Shakespeare enhances the quality of the words he uses.

Absolute synonyms

With absolute synonyms, the meaning and function of the synonymous words are exactly the same. If you have a pair of absolutely synonymous words, you can substitute the words in every possible context (semantic, grammatical, sociolinguistic, etc.) with its synonym. This condition is very rare because, usually, two words that refer to the same meaning/object can’t co-exist. An example of an absolute synonym is airport and aerodrome. The former is what we commonly use nowadays, whereas the latter is an old-fashioned word.

Partial synonyms

Partial synonyms, on the other hand, occur when words have very closely related meanings. The meanings are not exactly the same, only partially, but close enough to relay the same message. Partial synonyms can differ in their collocation, register, and regional/social variation.

Have a look at these examples of partial synonyms:

Important to note: Homonym is a broader term for homophone (words that sound the same but have different meanings) and homograph (words that are spelt the same but have different meanings). Synonyms have similar meanings but homonyms have different meanings.

Even though the word wing is replaced with extension, we still get the same information about ‘a new section of the hospital is currently being constructed and it is for the maternity department’. The meaning of extension isn’t exactly the same as wing , but similar.

The same explanation can also be found here. We still get the same information about where my room is: on the west side of the building.

Polysemy — multiple meanings: wing — animal parts for flying & a section of a building.

The meaning of wing in this sentence refers to ‘a section of building’ and not ‘animal parts for flying’.

Synonymy vs. Polysemy

• In synonymy, you can substitute a word with its similar meaning and the sense/meaning of the sentence doesn’t change. A is similar to B .
• Synonyms are usually used as a means of avoiding word repetition. However, be careful of the slightly different meanings of synonymous words. Always be mindful of the context and valency of the sentence.
• Polysemy isn’t about word substitution. Because a single polysemic word has many meanings (A means B and C) , it can cause ambiguity. It is often used for wordplay or for creating “hidden” meanings.

I. 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, illustrious may make a
synonymic set.

A polysemantic 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-date

Fresh – another – different – new

Fresh – invigorating – pure

Fresh – inexperienced – green- raw

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 out
the 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
components and thus usually have different lexical colloqability.”
This definition was given by Pr. Elena Borisovna Cherkasskaya.

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.

1. Functions of synonyms in speech

Synonyms have 3 main functions in speech:

• The function of substitution in order to avoid repetition and
  monotony

• The function of précising in meaning in order to reach a greater
  accuracy and avoid vagueness.

• The 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)

1. Types of synonyms

According to the classification of synonyms developed by academician
Vinogradov, there are 3 types of synonyms:

• Idiographic synonyms. He describes idiographic
  synonyms as words conveying the same notion but differing in
  meaning. Idiographic synonyms refer to the same general concept but
  they differ sometimes in the denotational meaning, e.g.
  a look (a conscious and direct in devour to see) – a glance (a
  look, which is quick and sudden) – a glimpse (a look implying
  only momentary sights). These
  idiographic synonyms differ in quickness of the action and the time
  of duration.

• Stylistic synonyms are words of the same
  denotational meaning used in different speech styles. They have the
  same denotational components but differ in stylistic components of
  their semantic structure, e.g.
  enemy/farter (neutral) – foe/sire (poetical) – adversary/parent
  (bookish) – opponent (official) / Dad (coloq.).

• Absolute synonyms in English are words of
  exactly the same meaning, words identical in meanings, e.g.
  fricatives and spirants; fatherland and motherland.
  Absolute synonyms are very rare. According to F.R. Palmer it would
  seem unlikely, “that two words with exactly the same meaning
  would both survive in a language”.

1. Sources of synonyms in English

The following points are usually considered as sources of synonyms:

• Borrowings.

Borrowings from French, Latin and Greek are the
most numerous ones in English. They often express an idea or name a
thing for which they already exist in a native word. That’s how
synonyms appear in the vocabulary. In most cases the native word is
more ordinary tan its foreign counterpart, e.g.
to buy – to purchase, brotherly – fraternal, world – universe.

But there exit plenty of cases of all borrowings
having become thoroughly assimilated. Some of them even express the
most general idea in synonymic sets and serve as synonymic dominants:
valley – dale, piece – lump/cake, to
decide – to settle, action – did…

There are examples of triplets: one native – one
from French – one directly from Latin, e.g.
ask–question-interrogate; teaching-guidance-instruction; to
gather-to assemble-to collect; kingly-royal-regal.

• Dialectisms.

Dialectisms are words from local dialects, which
have entered the English vocabulary as regular words creating
synonyms to the words of Standard English, e.g. Scotch
synonyms: lass – girl, bonny – pretty, daft –
crazy/foolish/wild.

• Word-building processes.

Word-building processes, which are at work in the English Language,
create synonyms to words already in use. The following cases are to
be considered here:

• composite or phrasal verbs (составные
  глаголы), e.g.
  to choose – to pick out; to abandon – to give up; to enter –
  to come in; to descend – to go down; to ascend – to go up;

• compounding which comprises composition and
  conversion working simultaneously,
  e.g. fight-back – resistance; precipitation – fall-out;
  conscription – a call up;

• conversion, e.g.
  to verbalize – to word; laughter – a laugh; to moisten – to
  wet;

• shortening, e.g.
  microphone – mike; popular – pop; examinations – exams;

• affixation or loss of affixes, e.g.
  anxiety – anxiousness; affectivity – affectiveness; amongst –
  among; await – wait;

• set expressions,
  e.g.
  to laugh – to give a laugh; to walk – to take a walk;

In this connection the problem of synonyms and lexical variants
arises: should these cases be regarded as synonyms or lexical
variants.

1. Euphemisms as a specific type of synonyms

Euphemism is a Greek word (EU means “well” and
PHEMOS means “speaking” thus “Euphemism” means speaking
well). A euphemism is a substitution of a harsh, obscene, indelicate
or otherwise unpleasant word by a less offensive word or periphrastic
expression, e.g. quieer
is a euphemism for mad;
intoxicated
is a euphemism for drunk;
in one’s birthday suit = naked.

Euphemisms are divided into 2 main groups according to the character
of words they subdtitute:

• Religious and superstitious taboos are
  words and set phrases which are avoided in speech for religious
  reasons or because of superstition,
  e.g. God – goodness, gracious, gosh; Devil – deuce, Dickens,
  Nicolas, old Nick, Darwin; to die – to pass away, to go to one’s
  last home, to go to the way of all flash, to join the majority, to
  kick the bucket;

• Social and moral taboos
  are words and idioms which are avoided in speech as not acceptable
  in the polite conversation, e.g.
  trousers – unmentionables; toilet – powder-room, retiring-room,
  wash-room, restroom, lady’s room, public comfort station, WC
  (Windsor Castle), public conveniences;
  pregnant – in an interesting/delicate
  condition; in a family way, with the baby coming, pig with child;
  drunk – intoxicated, tipsy, under the influence, mellow, fresh,
  high, merry, flustered, overcome, full, to be drunk as a lord/owl,
  boiled, fried, tanked, tight, stiff, pickled, soaked;

Соседние файлы в папке Lecture8

• #
• #
• #

LECTURE 10.
SYNONYMS AND THEIR CLASSIFICATIONS
1) Synonyms: words with the same or different meaning.
2) Criteria of Synonymy
3) Types of Synonyms. Types of Connotations
4) The Dominant Synonym
5) Euphemisms

1. Synonyms: words the same or different meaning
Synonymy is one of modern linguistics’ most controversial problems. The very existence of words traditionally called synonyms is disputed by some linguists; the nature and essence of the relationships of these words is hotly debated and treated in quite different ways by the representatives of different linguistic schools. Even though one may accept that synonyms in the traditional meaning of the term are somewhat elusive and, to some extent, fictitious it is certain that there are words in any vocabulary which clearly develop regular and distinct relationships when used in speech.
In the following extract, in which a young woman rejects a proposal of marriage, the verbs like, admire and love, all describe feelings of attraction, approbation, fondness:
«I have always liked you very much, I admire your talent, but, forgive me, — I could never love you as a wife should love her husband.»
(From The Shivering Sands by V. Holt)
Yet, each of the three verbs, though they all describe more or less the same feeling of liking, describes it in its own way: «I like you, i. e. I have certain warm feelings towards you, but they are not strong enough for me to describe them as «love», — so that like and love are in a way opposed to each other.
The duality of synonyms is, probably, their most confusing feature: they are somewhat the same, and yet they are most obviously different. Both aspects of their dual characteristics are essential for them to perform their function in speech: revealing different aspects, shades and variations of the same phenomenon.
«— Was she a pretty girl?
— I would certainly have called her attractive.»
(Ibid.)
The second speaker in this short dialogue does his best to choose the word which would describe the girl most precisely: she was good-looking, but pretty is probably too good a word for her, so that attractive is again in a way opposed to pretty (not pretty, only attractive), but this opposition is, at the same time, firmly fixed on the sameness of pretty and attractive: essentially they both describe a pleasant appearance.
Here are some more extracts which confirm that synonyms add precision to each detail of description and show how the correct choice of a word from a group of synonyms may colour the whole text.
The first extract depicts a domestic quarrel. The infuriated husband shouts and glares at his wife, but «his glare suddenly softened into a gaze as he turned his eyes on the little girl» (i. e. he had been looking furiously at his wife, but when he turned his eyes on the child, he looked at her with tenderness).
The second extract depicts a young father taking his child for a Sunday walk.
«Neighbours were apt to smile at the long-legged bare-headed young man leisurely strolling along the street and his small companion demurely trotting by his side.»
(From Some Men and Women by B. Lowndes)
The synonyms stroll and trot vividly describe two different styles of walking, the long slow paces of the young man and the gait between a walk and a run of the short-legged child.
In the following extract an irritated producer is talking to an ambitious young actor:
«Think you can play Romeo? Romeo should smile, not grin, walk, not swagger, speak his lines, not mumble them.»
(Ibid.)
Here the second synonym in each pair is quite obviously and intentionally contrasted and opposed to the first: «… smile, not grin.» Yet, to grin means more or less the same as to smile, only, perhaps, denoting a broader and a rather foolish smile. In the same way to swagger means «to walk», but to walk in a defiant or insolent manner. Mumbling is also a way of speaking, but of speaking indistinctly or unintelligibly.
Synonyms are one of the language’s most important expressive means. The above examples convincingly demonstrate that the principal function of synonyms is to represent the same phenomenon in different aspects, shades and variations.
And here is an example of how a great writer may use synonyms for stylistic purposes. In this extract from Death of a Hero R. Aldington describes a group of survivors painfully retreating after a defeat in battle:
«… The Frontshires [name of battalion] staggered rather than walked down the bumpy trench … About fifty men, the flotsam of the wrecked battalion, stumbled past them …. They shambled heavily along, not keeping step or attempting to, bent wearily forward under the weight of their equipment, their unseeing eyes turned to the muddy ground.»
In this extract the verb to walk is used with its three synonyms, each of which describes the process of walking in its own way. In contrast to walk the other three words do not merely convey the bare idea of going on foot but connote the manner of walking as well. Stagger means «to sway while walking» and, also, implies a considerable, sometimes painful, effort. Stumble, means «to walk tripping over uneven ground and nearly falling.» Shamble implies dragging one’s feet while walking; a physical effort is also connoted by the word.
The use of all these synonyms in the extract creates a vivid picture of exhausted, broken men marching from the battle-field and enhances the general atmosphere of defeat and hopelessness.
A carefully chosen word from a group of synonyms is a great asset not only on the printed page but also in a speaker’s utterance. It was Mark Twain who said that the difference between the right word and just the right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug.
2. Criteria of Synonymy
Synonymy is associated with some theoretical problems which at present are still an object of controversy. Probably, the most controversial among these is the problem of criteria of synonymy. To put it in simpler words, we are still not certain which words should correctly be considered as synonyms, nor are we agreed as to the characteristic features which qualify two or more words as synonyms.
Traditional linguistics solved this problem with the conceptual criterion and defined synonyms as words of the same category of parts of speech conveying the same concept but differing either in shades of meaning or in stylistic characteristics.
Some aspects of this definition have been criticised. It has been pointed out that linguistic phenomena should be defined in linguistic terms and that the use of the term concept makes this an extralinguistic definition. The term «shades of meaning» has been condemned for its vagueness and lack of precision.
In contemporary research on synonymy semantic criterion is frequently used. In terms of componential analysis synonyms may be defined as words with the same denotation, or the same denotative component, but differing in connotations, or in connotative components.
Though not beyond criticism, this approach has its advantages and suggests certain new methods of analysing synonyms.
A group of synonyms may be studied with the help of their dictionary definitions (definitional analysis). In this work the data from various dictionaries are analysed comparatively. After that the definitions are subjected to transformational operations (transformational analysis). In this way, the semantic components of each analysed word are singled out.
Here are the results of the definitional and transformational analysis of some of the numerous synonyms for the verb to look.
The common denotation convincingly shows that, according to the semantic criterion, the words grouped in the above table are synonyms. The connotative components represented on the right side of the table highlight their differentiations.
In modern research on synonyms the criterion of interchangeability is sometimes applied. According to this, synonyms are defined as words which are interchangeable at least in some contexts without any considerable alteration in denotational meaning.
This criterion of interchangeability has been much criticised. Every or almost every attempt to apply it to this or that group of synonyms seems to lead one to the inevitable conclusion that either there are very few synonyms or, else, that they are not interchangeable.
It is sufficient to choose any set of synonyms placing them in a simple context to demonstrate the point. Let us take, for example, the synonyms from the above table.
Cf.: He glared at her (i. e. He looked at her angrily). He gazed at her (i. e. He looked at her steadily and attentively; probably with admiration or interest).
He glanced at her (i. e. He looked at her briefly and turned away).
He peered at her (i. e. He tried to see her better, but something prevented: darkness, fog, weak eyesight).
These few simple examples are sufficient to show that each of the synonyms creates an entirely new situation which so sharply differs from the rest that any attempt at «interchanging» anything can only destroy the utterance devoiding it of any sense at all.
Used in this way, in a related context, all these words (/ like you, but I cannot love you; the young man was strolling, and his child was trotting by his side; Romeo should smile, not grin, etc.) clearly demonstrate that substitution of one word for another is impossible: it is not simply the context that firmly binds them in their proper places, but the peculiar individual connotative structure of each individual word.
Consequently, it is difficult to accept interchangeability as a criterion of synonymy because the specific characteristic of synonyms, and the one justifying their very existence, is that they are not, cannot and should not be interchangeable, in which case they would simply become useless ballast in the vocabulary.
Synonyms are frequently said to be the vocabulary’s colours, tints and hues (so the term shade is not so inadequate, after all, for those who can understand a metaphor). Attempts at ascribing to synonyms the quality of interchangeability are equal to stating that subtle tints in a painting can be exchanged without destroying the picture’s effect.
All this does not mean that no synonyms are interchangeable. One can find whole groups of words with half-erased connotations which can readily be substituted one for another. The same girl can be described as pretty, good-looking, handsome or beautiful. Yet, even these words are far from being totally interchangeable. Each of them creates its own picture of human beauty. Here is an extract in which a young girl addresses an old woman:
«I wouldn’t say you’d been exactly pretty as a girl — handsome is what I’d say. You’ve got such strong features.»
(From The Stone Angel by M. Lawrence)
So, handsome is not pretty and pretty is not necessarily handsome. Perhaps they are not even synonyms? But they are. Both, the criterion of common denotation («good-looking, of pleasing appearance») and even the dubious criterion of inter-changeability seem to indicate that.
In conclusion, let us stress that even if there are some synonyms which are interchangeable, it is quite certain that there are also others which are not. A criterion, if it is a criterion at all, should be applicable to all synonyms and not just to some of them. Otherwise it is not acceptable as a valid criterion.
3. Types of Synonyms
The only existing classification system for synonyms was established by Academician V. V. Vinogradov, the famous Russian scholar. In his classification system there are three types of synonyms: ideographic (which he defined as words conveying the same concept but differing in shades of meaning), stylistic (differing in stylistic characteristics) and absolute (coinciding in all their shades of meaning and in all their stylistic characteristics).
However, the following aspects of his classification system are open to question.
Firstly, absolute synonyms are rare in the vocabulary and, on the diachronic level, the phenomenon of absolute synonymy is anomalous and consequently temporary: the vocabulary system invariably tends to abolish it either by rejecting one of the absolute synonyms or by developing differentiation characteristics in one or both (or all) of them. Therefore, it does not seem necessary to include absolute synonyms, which are a temporary exception, in the system of classification.
The vagueness of the term «shades of meaning» has already been mentioned. Furthermore there seems to be no rigid demarcation line between synonyms differing in their shades of meaning and in stylistic characteristics. There are numerous synonyms which are distinguished by both shades of meaning and stylistic colouring. Therefore, even the subdivision of synonyms into ideographic and stylistic is open to question.
A more modern and a more effective approach to the classification of synonyms may be based on the definition describing synonyms as words differing in connotations. It seems convenient to classify connotations by which synonyms differ rather than synonyms themselves. It opens up possibilities for tracing much subtler distinctive features within their semantic structures.
Types of Connotations
1) The connotation of degree or intensity can be traced in such groups of synonyms as to surprise — to astonish — to amaze — to astound; to satisfy — to please — to content — to gratify — to delight — to exalt; to shout — to yell — to bellow — to roar; to like — to admire — to love — to adore — to worship.
Some words have two and even more connotative components in their semantic structures. In the above list the synonymic groups headed by to satisfy and to like contain words which can be differentiated not only by the connotation of intensity but by other types which will be described later.
2) In the group of synonyms to stare — to glare — to gaze — to glance — to peep — to peer, all the synonyms except to glance denote a lasting act of looking at somebody or something, whereas to glance describes a brief, passing look. These synonyms may be said to have a connotation of duration in their semantic structure.
Other examples are: to flash (brief) — to blaze (lasting); to shudder (brief) — to shiver (lasting); to say (brief) — to speak, to talk (lasting).
All these synonyms have other connotations besides that of duration.
3) The synonyms to stare — to glare — to gaze are differentiated from the other words of the group by emotive connotations, and from each other by the nature of the emotion they imply.
In the group alone — single — lonely — solitary, the adjective lonely also has an emotive connotation.
She was alone implies simply the absence of company, she was lonely stresses the feeling of melancholy and desolation resulting from being alone. A single tree on the plain states plainly that there is (was) only one tree, not two or more. A lonely tree on the plain gives essentially the same information, that there was one tree and no more, but also creates an emotionally coloured picture.
In the group to tremble — to shiver — to shudder — to shake, the verb to shudder is frequently associated with the emotion of fear, horror or disgust, etc. (e. g. to shudder with horror) and therefore can be said to have an emotive connotation in addition to the two others.
One should be warned against confusing words with emotive connotations and words with emotive denotative meanings, e. g. to love — to admire — to adore — to worship; angry — furious — enraged; fear — terror — horror. In the latter, emotion is expressed by the leading semantic component whereas in the former it is an accompanying, subsidiary characteristic.
4) The evaluative connotation conveys the speaker’s attitude towards the referent, labelling it as good or bad. So in the group well-known — famous — notorious — celebrated, the adjective notorious bears a negative evaluative connotation and celebrated a positive one. Cf.: a notorious murderer, robber, swindler, coward, lady-killer, flirt, but a celebrated scholar, artist, singer, man-of-letters.
In the group to produce — to create — to manufacture — to fabricate, the verb to create characterises the process as inspired and noble. To manufacture means «to produce in a mechanical way without inspiration or originality». So, to create can be said to have a positive evaluative connotation, and to manufacture a negative one.
The verbs to sparkle and to glitter are close synonyms and might well be favoured by supporters of the interchangeability criterion. Yet, it would be interesting to compare the following sets of examples:
A. His (her) eyes sparkled with amusement, merriment, good humour, high spirits, happiness, etc. (positive emotions).
B. His (her) eyes glittered with anger, rage, hatred,
malice, etc. (negative emotions).
The combinability of both verbs shows that, at least, when they are used to describe the expression of human eyes, they have both emotive and evaluative connotations, and, also, one further characteristic, which is described in the next paragraph.
5) The causative connotation can be illustrated by the examples to sparkle and to glitter given above: one’s eyes sparkle with positive emotions and glitter with negative emotions. However, this connotation of to sparkle and to glitter seems to appear only in the model «Eyes + Sparkle/Glitter».
The causative connotation is also typical of the verbs we have already mentioned, to shiver and to shudder, in whose semantic structures the cause of the act or process of trembling is encoded: to shiver with cold, from a chill, because of the frost; to shudder with fear, horror, etc.
To blush and to redden represent similar cases: people mostly blush from modesty, shame or embarrassment, but usually redden from anger or indignation. Emotive connotation can easily be traced in both these verbs.
6) The connotation of manner can be singled out in some groups of verbal synonyms. The verbs to stroll — to stride — to trot — to pace — to swagger — to stagger — to stumble all denote different ways and types of walking, encoding in their semantic structures the length of pace, tempo, gait and carriage, purposefulness or lack of purpose. The verbs to peep and to peer also have this connotation in their semantic structures: to peep = to look at smb./smth. furtively, by stealth; to peer = to look at smb./smth. with difficulty or strain.
The verbs to like — to admire — to love — to adore — to worship, as has been mentioned, are differentiated not only by the connotation of intensity, but also by the connotation of manner. Each of them describes a feeling of a different type, and not only of different intensity.
7) The verbs to peep and to peer have already been mentioned. They are differentiated by connotations of duration and manner. But there is some other curious peculiarity in their semantic structures. Let us consider their typical contexts.
One peeps at smb./smth. through a hole, crack or opening, from behind a screen, a half-closed door, a newspaper, a fan, a curtain, etc. It seems as if a whole set of scenery were built within the word’s meaning. Of course, it is not quite so, because «the set of scenery» is actually built in the context, but, as with all regular contexts, it is intimately reflected in the word’s semantic structure. We shall call this the connotation of attendant circumstances.
This connotation is also characteristic of to peer which will be clear from the following typical contexts of the verb.
One peers at smb./smth. in darkness, through the fog, through dimmed glasses or windows, from a great distance; a short-sighted person may also peer at things. So, in the semantic structure of to peer are encoded circumstances preventing one from seeing clearly.
The synonyms pretty, handsome, beautiful have been mentioned as the ones which are more or less interchangeable. Yet, each of them describes a special type of human beauty: beautiful is mostly associated with classical features and a perfect figure, handsome with a tall stature, a certain robustness and fine pro portions, pretty with small delicate features and a fresh complexion. This connotation may be defined as the connotation of attendant features.
9) Stylistic connotations stand somewhat apart for two reasons. Firstly, some scholars do not regard the word’s stylistic characteristic as a connotative component of its semantic structure. Secondly, stylistic connotations are subject to further classification, namely: colloquial, slang, dialect, learned, poetic, terminological, archaic. Here again we are dealing with stylistically marked words, but this time we approach the feature of stylistic characteristics from a different angle: from the point of view of synonyms frequent differentiation characteristics.
Here are some examples of synonyms which are differentiated by stylistic connotations. The word in brackets starting each group shows the denotation of the synonyms.
(Meal). Snack, bite (coll.), snap (dial.), repast, refreshment, feast (formal).
These synonyms, besides stylistic connotations, have connotations of attendant features.
Snack, bite, snap all denote a frugal meal taken in a hurry; refreshment is also a light meal; feast is a rich or abundant meal.
(Girl). Girlie (coll.), lass, lassie (dial.), bird, birdie, jane, fluff, skirt (sl.), maiden (poet.), damsel (arch.).
4. The Dominant Synonym
All (or, at least, most) synonymic groups have a «central» word of this kind whose meaning is equal to the denotation common to all the synonymic group. This word is called the dominant synonym.
Here are examples of other dominant synonyms with their groups:
To surprise — to astonish — to amaze — to astound.
To shout — to yell — to bellow — to roar.
To shine — to flash — to blaze — to gleam — to glisten — to sparkle — to glitter — to shimmer — to glimmer.
To tremble — to shiver — to shudder — to shake.
To make — to produce — to create — to fabricate — to manufacture.
Angry — furious — enraged. Fear — terror — horror.
The dominant synonym expresses the notion common to all synonyms of the group in the most general way, without contributing any additional information as to the manner, intensity, duration or any attending feature of the referent. So, any dominant synonym is a typical basic-vocabulary word. Its meaning, which is broad and generalised, more or less «covers» the meanings of the rest of the synonyms, so that it may be substituted for any of them. It seems that here, at last, the idea of interchangeability of synonyms comes into its own. And yet, each such substitution would mean an irreparable loss of the additional information supplied by connotative components of each synonym. So, using to look instead of to glare, to stare, to peep, to peer we preserve the general sense of the utterance but lose a great deal in precision, expressiveness and colour.
Summing up what has been said, the following characteristic features of the dominant synonym can be underlined:
1) High frequency of usage.
2) Broad combinability, i. e. ability to be used in combinations with various classes of words.
3) Broad general meaning.
4) Lack of connotations. (This goes for stylistic con
notations as well, so that neutrality as to style is
also a typical feature of the dominant synonym.)
5. Euphemisms
There are words in every language which people instinctively avoid because they are considered indecent, indelicate, rude, too direct or impolite. As the «offensive» referents, for which these words stand, must still be alluded to, they are often described in a round-about way, by using substitutes called euphemisms. This device is dictated by social conventions which are sometimes apt to be over-sensitive, see «indecency» where there is none and seek refinement in absurd avoidances and pretentiousness.
The word lavatory has, naturally, produced many euphemisms. Here are some of them: powder room, washroom, restroom, retiring room, (public) comfort station, ladies’ (room), gentlemen’s (room), water-closet, w.c. ([d0blju:’si:]), public conveniences and even Windsor castle (which is a comical phrase for «deciphering» w.c.).
Pregnancy is another topic for «delicate» references. Here are some of the euphemisms used as substitutes for the adjective pregnant: in an interesting condition, in a delicate condition, in the family way, with a baby coming, (big) with child, expecting.
The apparently innocent word trousers, not so long ago, had a great number of euphemistic equivalents, some of them quite funny: unmentionables, inexpressibles, indescribables, unwhisperables, you-mustn’t-men-tion ’ems, sit-upons. Nowadays, however, nobody seems to regard this word as «indecent» any more, and so its euphemistic substitutes are no longer in use.
There are words which are easy targets for euphemistic substitution. These include words associated with drunkenness, which are very numerous.
The adjective drunk, for instance, has a great number of such substitutes, some of them «delicate», but most comical. E. g. intoxicated (form.), under the influence (form.), tipsy, mellow, fresh, high, merry, flustered, overcome, full (coll.), drunk as a lord (coll.), drunk as an owl (coll.), boiled (sl.), fried (sl.), tanked (sl.), tight (sl.), stiff (sl.), pickled (sl.), soaked (sl.), three sheets to the wind (sl.), high as a kite (sl.), half-seas-over (sl.), etc.
Euphemisms may, of course, be used due to genuine concern not to hurt someone’s feelings. For instance, a liar can be described as a person who does not always strictly tell the truth and a stupid man can be said to be not exactly brilliant.
All the euphemisms that have been described so far are used to avoid the so-called social taboos. Their use, as has already been said, is inspired by social convention.
Superstitious taboos gave rise to the use of other type of euphemisms. The reluctance to call things by their proper names is also typical of this type of euphemisms, but this time it is based on a deeply-rooted subconscious fear.
Superstitious taboos have their roots in the distant past of mankind when people believed that there was a supernatural link between a name and the object or creature it represented. Therefore, all the words denoting evil spirits, dangerous animals, or the powers of nature were taboo. If uttered, it was believed that unspeakable disasters would result not only for the speaker but also for those near him. That is why all creatures, objects and phenomena threatening danger were referred to in a round-about descriptive way. So, a dangerous animal might be described as the one-lurking-in-the-wood and a mortal disease as the black death. Euphemisms are probably the oldest type of synonyms, for it is reasonable to assume that superstitions which caused real fear called for the creation of euphemisms long before the need to describe things in their various aspects or subtle shades caused the appearance of other synonyms.
The Christian religion also made certain words taboo. The proverb Speak of the devil and he will appear must have been used and taken quite literally when it was first used, and the fear of calling the devil by name was certainly inherited from ancient superstitious beliefs. So, the word devil became taboo, and a number of euphemisms were substitutes for it: the Prince of Darkness, the black one, the evil one, dickens (coll.), deuce (coll.), (Old) Nick (coll.).
The word God, due to other considerations, also had a great number of substitutes which can still be traced in such phrases as Good Lord!, By Heavens/, Good Heavens!, (My) goodness!, (My) goodness gracious!, Gracious me!
Even in our modern emancipated times, old superstitious fears still lurk behind words associated with death and fatal diseases. People are not superstitious nowadays and yet they are surprisingly reluctant to use the verb to die which has a long chain of both solemn and humorous substitutes. E. g. to pass away, to be taken, to breathe one’s last, to depart this life, to close one’s eyes, to yield (give) up the ghost, to go the way of all flesh, to go West (sl.), to kick off (sl.), to check out (sl.), to kick the bucket (sl.), to take a ride (sl.), to hop the twig (sl.), to join the majority (sl.).
The slang substitutes seem to lack any proper respect, but the joke is a sort of cover for the same old fear: speak of death and who knows what may happen.
Mental diseases also cause the frequent use of euphemisms.
A mad person may be described as insane, mentally unstable, unbalanced, unhinged, not (quite) right(coll.), not all there (coll.), off one’s head (coll.), off one’s rocker (coll.), wrong in the upper storey (coll.), having bats in one’s belfry (coll.), crazy as a bedbug (coll.), cuckoo (sl.), nutty (sl.), off one’s nut (sl.), loony (sl.), a mental case, a mental defective, etc.
A clinic for such patients can also be discreetly referred to as, for instance, an asylum, sanitarium, sanatorium, (mental) institution, and, less discreetly, as a nut house (sl.), booby hatch (sl.), loony bin (sl.), etc.
In the story by Evelyn Waugh «Mr. Loveday’s Little Outing» a clinic of this kind, treating only very rich patients, is described as large private grounds suitable for the charge of nervous or difficult cases. This is certainly the peak of euphemistic «delicacy».
The great number of humorous substitutes found in such groups of words prove particularly tempting for writers who use them for comical purposes. The following extracts from a children’s book by R. Dahl are, probably, not in the best of taste, but they demonstrate the range of colloquial and slang substitutes for the word mad.
«He’s gone off his rocker!» shouted one of the fathers, aghast, and the other parents joined in the chorus of frightened shouting.
«He’s crazy!» they shouted.
«He’s balmy!»
«He’s nutty!»
«He’s screwy!»
«He’s batty!»
«He’s dippy!»
«He’s dotty!’*
«He’s daffy!»
«He’s goofy!»
«He’s beany!»
«He’s buggy!»
«He’s wacky!»
«He’s loony!»
«No, he is not!» said Grandpa Joe.
(From Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by R. Dahl)
… «What did I tell you!» — cried Grandma Georgina. «He’s round the twist! He’s bogged as a beetle! He’s dotty as a dingbat! He’s got rats in the roof!…»
(Ibid.)
All the above examples show that euphemisms are substitutes for their synonyms. Their use and very existence are caused either by social conventions or by certain psychological factors. Most of them have stylistic connotations in their semantic structures. One can also assume that there is a special euphemistic connotation that can be singled out in the semantic structure of each such word. Let us point out, too, that euphemistic connotations in formal euphemisms are different in «flavour» from those in slang euphemistic substitutes. In the first case they are solemn and delicately evasive, and in the second rough and somewhat cynical, reflecting an attempt to laugh off an unpleasant fact.