The problem of criteria of synonymy

Раздел 5. Структура лексикона. Типы семантических отношений в лексике

The Structure of English Vocabulary. Types of Semantic Relations

1. Which words do we call synonyms?

Synonymscan be defined in terms of linguistics as two or more words of the same language, belonging to the same part of speech and possessing one or more identical or nearly identical denotational meanings, interchangeable, at least in some contexts, without any considerable alteration in denotational meaning, but differing in morphemic composition, phonetic shape, connotations, affective value, style and idiomatic use.

Synonymy is one of modern linguistics’ most controversial problems. The very existence of words traditionally called synonymsis disputed by some linguists.

Even though one may accept that synonyms in the traditional meaning of the term are somewhat elusive (неясный) and, to some extent, fictitious, it is certain that there are words in any vocabulary which clearly develop regular and distinct relations when used in speech. The verbs like, admire and love, all describe feelings of attraction (привлекательность),approbation (одобрение), fondness (любовь, нежность)

. Yet, each of the three verbs, though they all describe more or less the same feeling of liking, describes it in its own way.

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.

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.

In the following extract an irritated producer is talking to an ambitious young actor:

“Think you can play Romeo? Romeo should smile, not grin (ухмыляться), walk, not swagger (расхаживать с важным видом); speak his lines, not mumble them.”

Here the second synonym in each pair is quite obviously contrasted and opposed to the first: “…smile, not grin.” Yet, to grin means more or less the same as to smile, only 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.

2. Synonyms are one of the language’s most important expressive means

The principal function of synonyms is to present the same phenomenon in different aspects, shades and variations.

Let us consider the verb to walk and its three synonyms to stagger (идти шатаясь), to stumble (идти спотыкаясь), to shamble (волочить ноги, тащиться), 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.

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.

The skill to choose the most suitable word in every context and every situation is an essential part of the language learning process.

The problem of criteria of synonymy

Synonymy is associated with some theoretical problems which at present are still an object of controversy. The most controversial among these is the problem of criteria of synonymy. We are still not certain which words should correctly be considered as synonyms.

1) Traditional linguistics solved this problem with the conceptual criterionand 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 critisized. 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.

2) In contemporary research on synonymy semantic criterionis 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.

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.

Let us consider the results of the definitional and transformational analysis of some of the numerous synonyms for the verb to look.

	Denotation Connotations
to stare:	to look + steadily, lastingly + in surprise, curiosity
to glare:	to look + steadily, lastingly + in anger, rage, fury
to gaze:	to look + steadily, lastingly + in tenderness, admiration, wonder
to glance:	to look + briefly, in passing
to peep:	to look + quickly, secretly + by stealth; through an opening
to peer:	to look + steadily, lastingly + with difficulty or strain

The common denotation to look shows that, according to the semantic criterion, the words grouped in the table: to stare, to glare, to glance, to peep (to look quickly and secretly at sth), to peer (to look closely or carefully at sth) are synonyms. The connotative components: steadily, lastingly, briefly, in surprise, in anger, etc.highlight their differentiations.

3) In modern research on synonyms the criterion of interchangeabilityis 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 criticized. 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 that they are not interchangeable. It is sufficient to choose any set of synonyms placing them in a simple context to demonstrate the point. Confer: glare – gaze – glance – peer.

Consequently, it is difficult to accept interchangeability as a criterion of synonymy because the specific characteristic of synonyms is that they are not, cannot and should not be interchangeable, in which case they would simply become useless ballast in the vocabulary.

All this does not mean that no synonyms are interchangeable. One can find whole groups of words which can readily be substituted one for another. The same girl can be described as pretty, good-looking, handsome or beautiful. Yet, even these wordsare far from being totally interchangeable.

In conclusion, let us stress that even if there are some synonyms which areinterchangeable, it is quite certain that there are also others which are not. A criterion should be applicable to all synonyms and not just to some of them.

The dominant synonym

All (or, at least, most) synonymic groups have a “central” word whose meaning is equal to the denotation common to all the synonymic group. This word is called the dominant synonym.

Here are examples of some dominant synonyms with their groups:

To tremble –to shiver – to shudder – to shake.

To make– to produce –to create – to fabricate – to manufacture.

Angry –furious – enraged.

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 manner, intensity, duration or any attending feature of the referent. Its meaning, which is broad and generalized, 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 the idea of interchangeability of synonymscomes 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 we preserve the general sense of the utterance but lose a great deal of precision, expressiveness and colour.

Summing up what has been said, the following characteristic features of the dominant synonym can be underlined:

I.High frequency of usage.

II.Broad combinability, i.e. ability to be used in combinations with various classes of words.

III.Broad general meaning.

IV.Lack of connotations. (This goes for stylistic connotations as well, so that neutrality as to style is also a typical feature of the dominant synonym).