Word pairs that are synonyms

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 contextual
synonym.

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 words
are
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;
euphemistic
synonyms
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.

1. 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.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

Популярное на сайте:

Как быстро выучить стихотворение наизусть? Запоминание стихов является стандартным заданием во многих школах. 

Как научится читать по диагонали? Скорость чтения зависит от скорости восприятия каждого отдельного слова в тексте. 

Как быстро и эффективно исправить почерк?  Люди часто предполагают, что каллиграфия и почерк являются синонимами, но это не так.

Как научится говорить грамотно и правильно? Общение на хорошем, уверенном и естественном русском языке является достижимой целью.