Introduction
Every language has in its vocabulary a lot of words which show similarity of meaning, though they may have different form. Dictionaries traditionally provide lists of words that are more or less synonymous for each entry.(Words whose meanings are different are called antonyms). English is particularly rich in synonyms. The richer the language, the more developed is its system of synonyms. The grouping of words is based upon similarities. Such words may be synonymous, nearly synonymous or may have subtle shades of difference in meaning, which makes English the only major language that requires the use of an organized listing of words that helps a native speaker or writer choose exactly the right word (see, for example, V.H.Collins). The skilful use of English requires special consideration in order to make an appropriate choice between two or more similar words. If all features are the same, the words should be interchangeable. However, people have constantly to select among them. If we compare the two words "stop" and "cease", which seem absolutely synonymous, we'll see that they can't be used interchangeably. A mother is unlikely to say to her child "Cease that!" instead of saying "Stop that".
The term "synonymy" is used for the sameness of meaning. Words of the same language having the same meaning or different words which stand for the same notion and belong to the same part of speech are synonyms. But these words have their own history, their typical contexts and different possibilities of connotation. (Connotation is a suggestion of words in addition to the ordinary meaning.)
In traditional semantics, synonymy has generally been understood as a relationship existing between two or more lexical items. In recent studies, however, the term "synonymy" has been expanded so that is also covers larger linguistic units, such as phrases, clauses, or even sentences. Thus, this broad sense of synonymity embraces the traditional approach to synonymity as the identity of meaning between words, as well as various types of paraphrase, inter-clausal or sentential relations.
The majority of linguistics (e.g. Lyons, 1977) allow only the contextual type of synonymy; on the other hand, some scholars regard synonymy as an entirely context-free phenomenon.
The Russian scholar A.I.Smirnitsky believes that such phenomena, as synonyms, antonyms, archaic words, etc. should not be included in the field of lexicology at all, but should refer to the sphere of general linguistics. But, he admits, knowledge and understanding of these phenomena are to help us understand the complex system of the lexical heritage of the language better (Smirnitsky, 1956, p.201).
It should be also be borne in mind that English vocabulary has come from different sources: from Anglo-Saxon on the one hand, and from French, Greek and Latin, on the other. For the historical reason, Anglo-Saxon words are often considered to be native, while those from French, Latin and Greek are borrowed from these languages. In most cases "native" word is more spontaneous, more informal, whereas the "foreign" word often has an alien character (e.g. answer-reply; world-universe, etc.)
Thus, if we want to distinguish between "to answer" and "to reply", we are immediately at a loss trying to determine their respective meanings because we have no fixed principle from which to proceed.
At the Norman conquest in 1066, many words were introduced by the conquerors into England and many of these words were identical in meaning with others in common use among the people of the country. Correspondingly, there is one aspect of lexicology closely connected with the subject of synonymy, i.e. the science that deals with the origin and history of words, etymology.
The percentage of borrowed words in English vocabulary is about 70, but the native element prevails. This is due to the fact that this element comprises a large number of words having a high frequency, such as the articles, auxiliaries, prepositions, pronouns and, certainly, words denoting everyday objects (e.g. child, house, go, come, eat, good, bad, etc.). What's more, the grammatical structure remains mainly Germanic and unaffected by foreign influence.
English words of the Indo-European group denote elementary concepts without which any human communication may be hardly possible. Here belong: animals, family relations, personal pronouns, and a lot of verbs, such as "be", "sit", "stand", "eat", "know", etc.
Some of the main groups of Germanic words are the same as in the Indo-European element. Here belong such verbs of saying as "say", "tell", "speak", "answer" ("speak" and "say" are Anglo-Saxon words whose meaning has not altered from the beginning. "speak" is derived from Anglo-Saxon words "specan", and "say" from "secgan", "tell", Anglo-Saxon "tellan", is allied to Anglo-Saxon "talu", a number, a narrative - modern English "tale").
On the other hand, it should be emphasized that words are continually undergoing change and some alteration in meaning.
The use of synonyms, including the verbs of saying, is influenced not only by the styles of the speakers or writers, but also by different socio-linguistic, psycholinguistic and extra-linguistic factors. It is obvious that there are many ways of saying the same thing, but students of English must choose the right word. The study of synonyms is especially important because what is the right word in one situation may be wrong in other, apparently similar, contexts. Translation cannot serve as a reliable criterion, especially in reference to the verbs of saying. For example, if we compare the Russian "говорить" with different meanings of this notion in English, we'll find a lot of equivalents in English. Which of them to choose? For "выразить" we must use "express" or "convey"; for "рассказывать" - "tell" or "narrate", for "изречь" - "utter" or "speak solemnly", for "говорить зло" - "speak maliciously", etc.
Thus, it is due to synonyms that ther exists a wealth of alternative expressions in English which give more emphasis to the idea.
The use of the verbs of saying, especially "say", "tell", "talk", "speak", is rather actual for school practice, for learners of English are liable to mistakes in the usage of these verbs, which have a high frequency and are widespread in discussing texts and dialogues, plays and films, etc.
The aim of my article has been to analyze the phenomenon of synonymy in English.
The article consists of an introduction, one chapter and a list of references. It has been written on the basis of dictionaries of synonyms and articles of Russian, American and British scholars.
Chapter I. Synonymy as the identity of essential meaning
The concept of synonymy.
To specify synonymy in the strict sense of the word is to specify meaning identity. For this purpose we must, first of all, differentiate between the various participants of the situation. So, if we compare the following sentences, we'll see that though they express the same factual content, they do not altogether share their semantic qualities.
Cf. John talked to few girls about many problems.
John talked about many problems to few girls.
In another pair of sentences:
John talked to Mary about Jack.
John talked about Jack to Mary.
The meaning seems to be identical, but it is not, because the grammatical constructions used in them are not synonymous and their linguistic meanings do not coincide, i.e. these sentences have two different linguistic meanings, though their factual content may be the same. Scholars speak of such cases as cases with the lack of a strict synonymy, i.e. as of sentences not fully synonymous.
The sameness of meaning and synonymy are surely observed in such cases as "I put on my coat" and "I put my coat on", but some of the contemporary linguists find some difference between one construction and the other even in this case.
There are cases when two constructions are not the same, but are so close semantically that they may be regarded as synonymous.
Cf. In the Bible it says that…
It says in the Bible that…
The Bible says that…
(D.Bolinger, 1977, p.81)
Foreign theoreticians closely connect synonymy with the two notions "extensions" and "intensions". The extension of a sentence is understood as its truth value with a single assignment of reference (e.g. Petr Sgal et.al., 1986, p.67). Intensions are understood as logically essential attributes of something denoted. A pair of sentences will be identical if not only the extensions, but also the intensions are assumed to be identical. (ibid., p.68).
Some scholars speak of the identity of meaning (synonymy) and identity of intension, the latter being only a necessary but not a sufficient condition of the former.
It is sometimes maintained that identity of intension does not differ from identity of meaning. If this is so, the two sentences:
- Charles sold a car to Paul.
- Paul bought a car from Charles.
are synonymous, but they may not be fully synonymous, because there is a great difference between the participants of the situations. In other words, the two sentences, though perhaps having the same intension, do not coincide in meaning and cannot be classified as fully synonymous. On the other hand, the two sentences cannot be described as different. Here we may say that the two sentences are not fully synonymous, which is due to certain limitations (restrictions): semantic, grammatical, etc.
Academician Ju. D.Apresjan gave a profound analysis of the concept of synonyms in his work "Synonymy and Synonyms", where he analyses lexical synonymy. He speaks of different semantic selectional restrictions as limitations in the use of words. "By a lexical selectional restriction of a word in a given sense we shall mean a limitation in its use which cannot be formulated otherwise than by listing all the words with which it can combine syntactically", he writes (Apresjan, 1973, p.184). Ju.Apresjan raises the problem of the difference between combinability and meaning, and draws the following conclusion:
- a definite peculiarity in the use of a word can be described only as a feature of its meaning;
- a definite peculiarity in the use of a word can be described only as a feature of its combinability:
- a definite peculiarity in the use of a word can be accounted for in both ways (non-uniqueness of semantic descriptions).
He points out the following types of selectional restriction: semantic, lexical and morpho-syntactic, and says that selectional restrictions can in principle be violated, e.g. for stylistic purposes (ibid.,p.186). Analyzing combinability which he understands as a certain degree of non-coincidence of selectional restrictions, Ju. Apresjan names for main types of combinability differences between lexical synonyms:
- full coincidence of combinability, which he regards as a rare phenomenon;
- inclusion of combinability;
- intersection of combinability (semantic, lexical, morpho-syntactic);
- full non-coincidence of combinability.
Ju. Apresjan tackles the problem of synonymy from a purely theoretical point of view and regards not actual, elementary differences between sets of synonyms lying on the surface, but combinations of differences, which, I think, is of little practical value.
On the other hand, we cannot deny that there exist certain restrictions in a word`s use, when, for example, an adverb may be used to modify only certain kinds of verbs or when a verb may take only certain kinds of nouns as its subject or its object. Webster calls such restrictions applications (Webster, p.25a), saying that every set of synonyms presents its own problems: words may differ in implications, connotations, applications, etc.
Restrictions of all kinds should be taken into consideration by all means, especially semantic and grammatical ones. For example, the verb "to be" has only grammatical restrictions because it is a verb. It can occur with any noun or noun phrase, an adjective phrase, in a subordinate clause, etc. And even in this case there exist some semantic restrictions: Cf. Jane is in hospital. (possible)
The glass is in hospital. (impossible)
There are verbs that occur only with animate subjects, e.g. movement verbs like "walk" and "skip", verbs of speaking: "talk", "assume"; we can count only countable objects, etc.
The next type of restriction is a "collocation". Selectional restrictions are semantically motivated semantic categories, whereas the so-called restrictional collocations can be arbitrary. An example of selectional restriction is the word "rusty" which may be used only about things made of iron.
Examples of arbitrary collocations include some sets of existing collocations and prohibited word-combinations. For example, "dinner set" and "tea set" is correct to say, but "breakfast set" or "lunch set" is not. (Of course, people may break various kinds of restrictions).
Synonyms are closely connected with syntax. A verb`s behavior arises from the interaction of its meaning and general principles of grammar. Grammatical distinctions are motivated by semantic distinctions: every grammatical construction is a vehicle of a certain semantic structure, and the syntactic possibilities are determined by the underlying semantic structures. Pairs of synonyms may be identical if they share the same semantics and the identical syntax. For example, if "likely" and "probable" are synonyms, they should have the same valency, but this is not so: "likely" allows a "to"-infinitive, while "probable" does not:
Cf. He is likely to come.
He is probable to come (wrong).
But if they are syntactically different, they can`t be synonyms. Or one more example: the verbs "to try" and "to attempt". Are they synonyms? We have now a choice between two views on the relation between syntax and semantics. Meaning is of primary importance: if syntactic behavior is predictable from meaning, "probable" should behave in the same way as "likely", but if syntax is unpredictable, the behavior of "likely" is irrelevant to that of "probable". Then the conclusion is as follows: "word X cannot be used in this way, although its synonym can". Relying on such examples, some scholars argue for the non-synonymy of the pairs "likely-probable", "try-attempt", "stop-cease" and "want-wish"(Wierbicka). Some other scholars consider these pairs synonymous (R. Hudson et al., 1996, taking into consideration a broad range of syntactic differences as well as grammatical functions, modifier selection and word order. Here they include such pairs as: "try-attempt", "stop-cease" , "want-wish", "should-ought", "let-allow", "wait-await", "able-capable" (ibid., p.443), assigning both synonyms to the same class.
The British scholar St. Ullmann connects the concept of synonymy with the phenomenon of multiple meaning (polysemy) (St. Ullmann, 1951, p. 46).
Believing that complete synonymy is a very rare occurrence, he says that even if it does exist, it doesn`t last long: different shades of meaning will gradually appear. So he comes to the conclusion that "it will be found that most synonyms are quasi-synonyms, that they cannot be used indiscriminately in any context or any standard of style, that their sense overlap, and that they are only interchangeable within certain limits" (ibidem).
On the other hand, he points out that English synonyms have such linguistic and stylistics values that all shades of meaning can be indicated by them.
Language is always produced and occurs in some kind of context. The role of context is so important that it actually passes through every language situation and it should be taken into consideration in all kinds of language analyses, even the grammatical ones. What`s more, the words may be not synonymous in the dictionary sense, but the speaker may consider them to be synonymous.
The American scholar D.A.Cruse speaks about different degrees of synonymity and distinguishes cognitive synonymy, i.e. relation reflecting true conditions (truth-conditional relations), and cognitive synonyms (Cruse, 1986). An example of pair of cognitive synonyms is, in his opinion, "fiddle" and "violin": these are incapable of yielding sentences with different truth-conditions. For instance, he says, "He plays the violin very well" entails and is entailed by "He plays the fiddles very well".
Lexical items differing only in one respect of inherent expressive traits - "jolly" and "very", "father" and "daddy", "cat" and "pussy", "go on" and "continue" - are, in his opinion, cognitive synonyms.
It is common that there are pairs of words whose meanings differ only in that they express different evaluative judgements: horse, nag: a smart alec, a clever chap, mean, careful with one`s money, etc. E.g.: A: I hear Arthur`s very mean.
B: No, he isn`t - he`s just careful with his money. (Cruse, 1986, p.277).
To be cognitive synonyms, Cruse points out, a pair of lexical items must have certain semantic properties in common (ibid., p.270). But in the majority of cases , a lexical item is different in meaning from any of its cognitive synonyms, at least in some respects. The content of the message conveyed by two utterances may be the same or similar, however, they may differ in the way the meaning is put across. They may differ in respect of semantic meaning, propositional meaning (whether it is a statement, question, command, exclamation, etc.), or expressive meaning, between which there are some differences (ibid., p.271).
The most important types of meaning in language are propositional and expressive meanings.through them the speaker, by means of different contexts, conveys his intended message. Most often, therefore, we deal with contextual synonyms, where the content of the message retains the central place. "Synonyms…are lexical units whose senses are identical in respect of "central" semantic traits, but different, if at all, only in respect of what we may…describe as "minor" or "peripheral" traits" (ibid., p.267).
A more recent approach is found in the monograph of the famous British linguist John Lyons "Linguistic Semantics" (1995). He calls expressions with the same meaning synonyms; expressions that are more or less similar, but not identical in meaning may be called, in his opinion, near-synonyms (Lyins, p.60).
Thus we see that synonymy is a most controversial problem of lexicology.