9) Synonymy and antonymy in modern English.

Synonymy. The problem of its definition. Criteria of synonyms. Ideographic, stylistic, absolute synonyms. Polysemy and synonymy.

Synonyms are defined as words belonging to one part of speech, possessing identical or nearly identical denotational meaning and interchangeable at least in some contexts, but different in morphemic composition, phonemic shape, connotations, pragmatic components and grammatical valency. Synonyms are characterized by either the semantic relations of equivalence or by the semantic relations of proximity.

Semantic equivalence implies full similarity of meaning of two or more language units. The relations of semantic equivalence in words can be illustrated by the phonetic terms “stops” and “plosives”, both used to denote the English sounds [p, b, t, d, k, g]. These terms are defined through the meaning of each other and are semantically equivalent. Nevertheless semantic equivalence seldom occurs in words and is highly unstable tending to turn into the relations of semantic proximity.

Semantic proximity implies that two or more words however different may share certain semantic features, e.g. the words “red” and “green” share the semantic features of “colour”. Besides, words may be graded in semantic proximity, a higher degree of which is conspicuous of synonyms, while a lower degree of proximity provides for broader and less homogeneous semantic groups. For example, the degree of proximity is lower in the words “red and green”, which share the semantic feature of “colour”, than in “red” vs. “scarlet” or “green” vs. “emerald”.

The highest degree of proximity is clearly manifested in the denotative, connotative and pragmatic components of the semantic structure of synonymous words.

The difference in connotation may be illustrated by the words “to peep”, meaning “to look at somebody or something surreptitiously, out of a covering or through a hole or opening” and “to peer” that means “to look at something with difficulty because of poor eyesight or through some obstacle such as fog, darkness”. These synonyms differ in the connotations of manner and attending circumstances.

The difference in the pragmatic value of words is observed in synonymic pairs consisting of a native and a borrowed word. In most cases the borrowed word is more formal, having a learned or abstract air, cf. motherly love – maternal feelings, sunny day – solar energy etc.

According to the difference in the three aspects of their semantic structure synonyms are classified into stylistic, ideographic and ideographic-stylistic.

Stylistic synonymy implies no interchangeability in context as the speech registers are different, e.g. children – infants, dad – father. Stylistic synonyms are similar in denotation, but different in pragmatic components of meaning.

Ideographic synonymy manifests a still lower degree of semantic proximity and is observed when the connotational and pragmatic components of the meaning are similar, but there are certain differences in the denotative component of the meaning, e.g. forest – wood, apartment – flat, shape – form.

Ideographic-stylistic synonymy is characterized by the lowest degree of semantic proximity. This type of synonyms includes words with difference in all three components of meaning – denotative, connotative and pragmatic, e.g. ask – inquire, expect – anticipate. Even if they have the same patterns of grammatical and lexical valency, they can hardly be interchangeable in context.

Every synonymic group has a synonymic dominant, which is the most general term potentially containing the specific features rendered by all the other members of the synonymic group. For example, in the synonymic group “leave – depart – quit – retire – clear out” the verb “leave” conveying the notion of “abandoning something” in the most general way and being both stylistically and emotionally neutral is considered the synonymic dominant and can substitute for the other four verbs, while the latter can replace “leave” only on condition that some specific semantic component prevails over the general notion. In case when it is necessary to stress the idea of giving up employment “quit” is preferable, because in this verb the connotation of attending circumstances dominates over the more general idea common to all the members of the group.

The dominant synonym possesses the following characteristics:

1) high frequency of usage;

2) broad combinability;

3) broad general meaning;

4) lack of connotations.

Criteria of synonymy. There may be applied several criteria for considering the words synonyms: a) notional; b) semantic; c) the criterion of interchangeability.

The notional criterion is applied in traditional linguistics, that defines synonyms as words of the same part of speech conveying the same notion but differing in shades of meaning or stylistic characteristics.

The semantic criterion is frequently used in contemporary research. In terms of componential analysis synonyms are words with the same denotation but differing in connotations and pragmatic components of meaning.

The criterion of interchangeability which is sometimes applied in modern research fails to be true in most cases. According to it synonyms are words which are interchangeable at least in some contexts without any considerable alteration in denotational meaning. But either there are very few synonyms or they are not interchangeable.

For example, if we try to substitute for any of the synonymic verbs in the sentences “He glared at her. He gazed at her. He glanced at her. He peered at her. He peeped at her”, we shall see that each of the synonyms creates an entirely new situation which so sharply differs from the others that any attempt at their interchanging can only destroy the utterance.

All this does not mean that no synonyms are interchangeable, as whole groups of words with half-erased connotations can be substituted for one another. Yet, even these words are far from being totally interchangeable without a slight change of meaning, e.g. consider the utterance “I wouldn’t say you’d been exactly pretty as a girl – handsome is what I’d say. You’ve got such strong features.”

Polysemy is the capacity for a sign (such as a word, phrase, or symbol) to have multiple meanings (that is, multiple semes or sememes and thus multiple senses), usually related by contiguity of meaning within a semantic field.

A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy.

Antonymy. Types of antonyms.

Antonyms are a class of words grouped together on the basis of the semantic relations of oppositions. Antonyms are words belonging to the same part of speech sharing certain common semantic characteristics and in this respect they are similar to such semantic classes as synonyms, lexical sets, lexico-semantic groupings.

Structurally, antonyms are divided antonyms of the same root (“to do – to undo, cheerful – cheerless”) and antonyms of different roots (“day – night, cold – hot”).

Semantically, antonyms are classified into contradictories, contraries and incompatibles.

Contradictory antonyms are mutually opposed; they deny one another, forming a privative binary opposition. To use one of the contradictories would mean to contradict the other as they are members of two-term sets; and to use ’not’ before one of them makes it semantically equivalent to the other, e.g. “not dead – alive, not single – married”.

Contraries are antonyms that can be arranged into a series according to the increasing difference in one of their qualities. The most distant elements of this series are classified as contrary notions. So, contraries are gradable antonyms being polar members of a gradual opposition which may have intermediate elements. This is observed in the group of contraries including “cold –hot and cool – warm” which are intermediate members. In this case we regard as antonyms not only “cold” and “hot” but also “cold” and “warm” etc. Contrary antonyms may also be considered in terms of degrees of the quality involved, e.g. it may be cold and very cold, or it may be colder.

Incompatibles are antonyms characterized by the relations of exclusion. Semantic relations of incompatibility are typical of antonyms with a common component of meaning; they may be described as the reverse of hyponymy. Incompatibles differ from contradictories as the former are members of the multiple-term sets, while the latter are members of two-term sets, e.g. to say “night” is to say “not day, not morning, not evening etc”. A relation of incompatibility may also be observed between colour terms, as the use of “back” ensues the exclusion of “red, green, white, orange etc”.