3. Synonyms in English

Synonyms are often defined as words different in form but identical in meaning. In reality, however, this is not so. By the very nature of language, each and every word has its own history, its typical contexts and motivation. Hence synonymous words could only be similar, but never really identical in meaning. There is always a difference, if very small, between either denotational or connotational meaning or both.

Synonyms, therefore, could be defined as belonging to the same part of speech, and possessing one or more identical, or nearly identical, denotational meanings. Synonyms are interchangeable – at least in some contexts – without any considerable change in meaning. However, they differ in morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, connotation, style, valency and idiomatic use – or at least in some of these parameters.

That synonyms are interchangeable leads one to believe the difference between their denotational meanings may, least under certain conditions, be neutralized. However, this often applies to certain contexts but not to others: so undergo changes and suffer changes seem to be identical in meaning, but in suffer atrocities, there is no replacing suffer, as, unlike undergo and experience, it implies pain.

Much synonymic group includes, among others, a dominant element, or a synonymic dominant. This seems to contain all, most, specific semantic features possessed also by the specific members of the synonymic group, and so is the most general term that could, if necessary, replace any other member of synonymic group in most contexts. An example is hope as used to anticipate, expect, look forward to: hope is most neutral word, while look forward is definitely colloquial and anticipate is bookish.

Traditionally, the Soviet linguists, following V.V. Vinogradov, distinguished between ideographic synonyms, defined words conveying the same notion but differing in shades of meaning, stylistic synonyms, differing in stylistic characteristics, and absolute synonyms, which coincided in all shades of meaning and all their stylistic characteristics. This, however, leaves more questions than answers. Firstly, absolute synonyms are very rare; whenever they appear – usually as a result of borrowings – one of them tends to drop out of use, or acquire a specialized meaning. Secondly, shades of meaning is something so vague that it evades definition. Thirdly, many synonyms are distinguished both by their shade of meaning and their stylistic colouring, or, in other words, both in their denotational and connotational meaning.

A more reliable approach to synonymy is presented by the componential theory of meaning. In terms of this theory, synonyms may be defined as word with the same denotation, but differing in connotations, or secondary components of meaning. To study a group of synonyms, we collect and analyze their definitions, preferably from different dictionaries. After that, we subject the definitions to semantic transformations to single out the components of meaning. Thus stare, glare and gaze all imply looking and a manner of this action that may be described as steady or lasting. However, in addition, stare implies surprise, glare – anger or fury, gaze implies admiration or wonder.

The synonymic dominant should not be confused with a hyperonym. This is a generic term which, although it can be used to replace any word in a synonymic group, implies not equivalence but inclusion, as animal is a hyperonym for wolf, dog or mouse. Dog, in its turn, is a hyperonym for collie, poodle, bull-dog, etc., which are its hyponyms. Unlike synonymy, which is symmetrical, a hypo-hyperonymic relation is asymmetrical, which the forms hypo- (Greek under) and hyper- (over) clearly signify.

A polysemantic word may belong, in its various meanings, to several different synonymic groups, as fresh is related, in its different meanings, to original, new, pure, inexperienced and rude. Two polysemantic words may have more than one meaning in common, but never coincide completely.

In a great number of cases, the semantic difference between synonyms is supported by a difference in valency, which may be syntactical, morphological, or lexical. Syntactically, for example, seem and appear differ from look in that seem and appear may be followed by that or an infinitive, and look is never found in such constructions. Other differences include the use of different prepositions (answer a question – reply to a question), or difference in lexical valency: gain a victory, but win a war. Difference in combinability extends to phraseological combinations: cast combines with glance but not with glimpse, although cast a look is perfectly possible, while steal, shoot or throw only combine with glance. This is akin to contextual or context-sensitive synonymy, where two words could on interchangeable under some very specific conditions, as their semantic difference is contextually neutralized. Buy and get, for example, are not synonyms, but the difference between them all but disappears when both are used colloquially, as in Go get some bread and Go buy some bread. Bear and stand, too, are hardly similar, but can’t bear and can’t stand are practically identical in meaning.

Diachronically, borrowings from various languages comprise the vast majority of English synonyms. A typical pattern is a word alongside that of a Latin origin (bodily – corporal, brotherly – fraternal), or a native word versus Greek or French (answer – reply), where the native word is typically neutral or colloquial, while the borrowed is bookish or literary.

The role of borrowings should not be overestimated, as new words are also created by other word-formation processes, and, once coined, become synonyms to those already in use. Of particular importance here is the formation of so-called phrasal verbs (abandon – give up, postpone – put off) and compound nouns related to them (conscription – call-up; reproduction – playback, etc.). Important causes of synonymy are creation of euphemisms, and the so-called synonymic attraction in colloquial speech, where notions of an emotionally significant, often partially taboo character (alcohol, sex, drugs) invite numerous slangy nominations, often current in teenage slang.