Вопросы по лексикологии
Referential and functional approaches to meaning.
Causes, types and results of semantic change.
Synonymy.
Antonymy.
Types of nomination and motivation of lexical units.
Homonymy.
Referential and functional approaches to meaning.
Semasiology (Greek semasia ‘meaning’) is a branch of lexicology investigating meaning of language units. It is universally accepted that language units having meanings are morphemes (the smallest meaningful units), words (lexemes), word combinations (phrases), sentences. The problem of phonetic meaning is controversial [Журавлев 1974]. There is also the term semantics which refers to the content of language and speech units. It is used in the following word combinations: semantics of the word, semantics of the sentence, semantics of the text, etc. Also this term refers to logical semantics.
As it was mentioned above, meaning is the inner facet of the word as a linguistic sign, its content. The very function of the word as a unit of communication is made possible by its possessing a meaning. Besides, meaning is a linking element between the objects of extra-linguistic reality (also qualities, processes) and the sound sequences which are the names of the objects. Therefore, meaning is the most important property of the word.
The problem of meaning has a long tradition in linguistics. Philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome were interested in relations between the name and the thing named and what role meaning plays in these relations.
There are two main approaches to the problem of meaning in modern linguistics: referential and functional. The referential approach (or theory) has a long tradition. It proceeds from the assumption that the word as a name is related to a thing (object) it names, which is called a referent (denotatum). The word ‘referent’ allows twofold interpretation. It denotes either a certain object, quality, process (real or imaginary) in actual situations of speech as in sentences: ‘The pen is on the table’ or ‘The book is interesting’, or a class of objects as pen (a class of pens) different from pencil (a class of pencils) or table different from chair, etc. It means that the word has a generating function.
The classes of things having names are distinguished by certain features, or properties, inherent in them. These features make up the concept of the object in our minds. The generating function of the word is most obvious in such contexts as The dog is a domestic animal, where the objects named refer to a class. In order to give a name to an object, one should form the notion, or concept of it, i.e. one must know the salient features of the object which differentiate it from other objects. Hence there is interrelation between word (its outer facet - a sound or graphic form), concept and referent which is represented by the so-called semantic triangle offered by the British linguists C.K.Ogden and I.A.Richards [Ogden, Richards 1946]:
By ‘linguistic symbol’ here is meant the sound or graphic form of the word. The dotted line suggests that there is no immediate relation between word and referent: it is established only through context. Hence, meaning in referential approach is a component of the word through which a concept is communicated, in this way endowing the word with the ability of denoting objects, qualities, phenomena, actions and abstract notions. One should bear in mind that though meaning is related both to referent and concept, it is not identical to either of them.
Meaning is not identical to referent (denotatum) as the latter, be it a single object referred to, or a class of objects belongs to extra-linguistic reality while meaning is a linguistic category. One and the same object can be named by different words, having different meanings. A woman can be called mother, sister, lady, doctor, etc. Not every word is related to really existing objects, some of the referents are fantastic or imaginary ones (e.g. dragon, devil).
Meaning is neither identical to concept as the latter is a category of cognition, i.e. it is a mental but not a linguistic phenomenon. Concepts reflect general and prominent features of objects and phenomena while meanings mostly fix features differentiating objects. Concepts are more or less identical for peoples speaking different languages, but meanings may be different. For example, the concept of house is identical for people speaking English and Russian languages as it is ‘a place for human habitation’, but the Russian word дом has a wider volume of meaning than the English word house as it embraces meanings of both the words house and home.
Synonyms more often than not reflect one and the same concept but differ in components of meaning. Thus the concept which refers to the initial phase of certain activities is reflected in the meanings of synonymous lexemes to begin (to start, take the first step), to start (to begin to do sth., begin an action), to commence (formal – begin, start), to initiate (set a scheme, etc working), to inaugurate (introduce a new official at a special ceremony). Each of these synonyms has its own meaning which brings to light a certain aspect of the underlying concept.
The above-mentioned correlation of word, concept and referent underlies certain definitions of meaning. Though the users of the language freely operate with the notion of meaning, giving a satisfying definition to meaning is no less easy matter than giving a definition to the word due to complexity of both notions. Definitions based on relations of the word and the referent are called ostensive, or referential. Such definitions are illustrative. In fact an ostensive definition is pointing at the corresponding referent and this method of defining words is widely used in teaching languages.
Ostensive definitions, however, are not free of shortcomings. Mere pointing at the object is not enough to give a satisfying definition of the word. Besides, the meanings of such abstract nouns as, for example, beauty, idea, verbs and adjectives as think, interesting, conjunctions, etc. are impossible to define by pointing at their referents. Thus ostensive definitions are applicable only to a relatively limited number of words, the so-called denotative, or identifying words, i.e. the words referring to material objects. The so-called predicative, or characterizing names, referring to properties and manifestations of objects or relations between the objects, cannot be defined ostensively [Харитончик 1992: 31]
A number of conceptual definitions of meaning based on interrelations between the word and the concept were put forward by linguists. For instance V.V.Vinogradov defines “lexical meaning of the word as its conceptual content, which is formed according to grammatical norms of the given language and is an element of the lexico-semantic system of the language” [Виноградов 1953].
Professor A.I.Smirnitsky proceeded from the basic assumption of the objectivity of language and meaning, and understanding the linguistic sign as a two-facet unit. He defined meaning as “a certain reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or relations (or imaginary constructions as mermaid, goblin, witch) that makes part of the linguistic sign – its so-called inner facet, whereas the sound form functions as its outer facet, its material shape...” [Смирницкий 1956: 152].
O.N.Sеliverstova defines meaning as information contained in the word [Селиверстова 1975].
Conceptual definitions were subject to criticism on the grounds that they are not purely linguistic and to a certain extent subjective. Besides some linguists claim that despite the obvious interrelation between the word meaning, the referent and the concept, it is not sufficient to elucidate the linguistic essence of the word meaning.
The functional approach aims at giving a purely linguistic definition of meaning thus overcoming the shortcomings of the above-mentioned definitions. According to this approach “meaning of the word is its functioning in speech” (Witgenstein) [Витгенштейн 1985]. This approach is based on the assumption that the meaning of a linguistic unit should be investigated in actual speech through its relations to other linguistic units and not through its relation to either concept or referent. For instance, the word black has different meanings in contexts: a black hat, black sorrow, Black Death. The functional approach helps us determine meanings of words in different contexts. However, it would be erroneous to fully identify the meaning and function of the word. Contexts indicate the meaningful differences of word meanings, but words have meanings outside contexts and it is not always possible to determine word meaning without correlating the word with its referent no matter how many contexts of its usage might be produced [Харитончик 1992: 34].
The referential and functional approaches should not be opposed to one another. The best way to have better understanding of meaning would be using both approaches in combination. They supplement each other and will provide a deeper understanding of such a complex linguistic phenomenon as meaning.
At present one more trend in semantic theory initiated by foreign linguists W.Chafe, Ch.Fillmore, J.Lakoff, R.Jackendoff, R.Langacker and others is being developed within the cognitive linguistic theory which got the name of theory of prototypes. It proceeds from the cognitive function of the language. Language is a very important instrument of human cognition with the help of which people get knowledge of the world and fix the new facts they learn in the language. Linguistic categories are conceptual categories of cognition. The interpretation of semantic phenomena is based on the sense underlying the word meaning which comes to light in the course of human experience and is important for distinguishing one object from another.
The word meaning in the cognitive approach is treated as the prototype of the object it refers to. This understanding of word meaning proceeds from human experience and perception of the reality and tends to reflect the peculiarities of human cognition of the world. The prototype of the object is formed in the course of observations and experiments when a human being discovers certain cognitive, or prototypical features of objects which distinguish this object from others and make up its prototype. For example, in order to distinguish fish from other living creatures one must know that the fish are animals living in water having gills and fins, etc. – these are the prototypical features of the object which got the name of fish. This theory differs from other semantic theories inasmuch as it takes into account the human factor in the processes of cognition and the language.
Causes, types and results of semantic change.
Word-meaning is liable to change in the course of the historical evolution of the language. Changes of lexical meaning are determined by diachronic semantic analyses of many commonly used English words. Thus the word silly (OE sælig) meant ‘happy’, the word glad (OE glæd) had the meaning of ‘bright, shining’, etc. Polysemy is the result of semantic change, when new LSVs emerge on the basis of already existing ones according to certain patterns of semantic derivation.
It is necessary to discriminate between the causes, the nature and the results of semantic change. Discussing the causes of semantic change we attempt to find out why the word changed its meaning. The factors accounting for semantic changes are of two kinds: a) extra-linguistic and b) linguistic causes. By extra-linguistic causes are meant changes in the life of a speech community, various spheres of human activities as reflected in word meanings. Historical, economic, political, cultural, technological, etc. changes result in either appearance of new objects which require new names or the existing objects undergo changes to such an extent that it causes semantic changes. Although objects, concepts, institutions, etc. change in the course of time, in many cases the sound form of the word is retained. The word car from Latin carrus which meant ‘a four-wheeled wagon’ now denotes ‘a motor-car’ and ‘a railway carriage’. The meaning of the word ship (OE scip) also considerably changed from the primary ‘vessel with bowsprit and three, four or five square-rigged masts’ to modern ‘any sea-going vessel of considerable size’ and ‘spacecraft’.
Social factors play a very important part in semantic change, especially when the words become jargonisms and professionalisms, i.e. used by certain social or professional groups. Each group uses its own denominations, and in consequence words acquire new content, new LSVs emerge, developing the words’ polysemy. Such are the polysemantic lexemes ring and pipe. The lexeme ring developed such professionalisms as ‘circular enclosure of space for circus-riding’, ‘concentric circles of wood when the trunk is cut across’, ‘space for the showing of cattle, dogs, etc (at farming exhibitions, etc) and others; pipe ‘musical wind instrument’, geol. cylindrical vein of ore, ‘cask for wine, esp. as measure’ and others.
To linguistic causes of semantic change refer changes of meaning due to factors acting within the language system. They are as follows: a) ellipsis: in a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to another, e.g. the meaning of the word daily was habitually used in collocation with the word newspaper. Later the noun newspaper was omitted and the adjective daily acquired the meaning of the whole phrase ‘daily newspaper’; b) discrimination of synonyms: when a new word is borrowed or coined in the language, it sometimes influences meanings of its synonyms, e.g. the Old English word hlaf which had the meaning of modern bread changed its meaning under the influence of the word bread, and now the OE hlaf is loaf which means ‘mass of bread cooked as a separate quantity’; the word fowl (OE fugol) had the meaning of modern bird but under the influence of its synonym bird [OE brid ‘young bird’] the word fowl developed a new LSV ‘domestic cock or hen’; c) linguistic analogy: it was found out, that if one of the members of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning, other members of this set change their meaning too, for instance, verbs synonymous with catch, e.g. grasp, get, etc. acquired another meaning - ‘to understand’ [Ginzburg 1979: 29].
Change of meaning presupposes using the existing name of a certain particular object for nominating another object. Such processes lately have got the name of secondary nomination. The processes of secondary nomination are also called transference of meaning, though it is more correct to speak of the transference of names and emerging of new meanings.
Changes in meaning become possible because there is a certain connection, association between the old meaning and the new or the two objects (referents) involved in the processes of nomination. Associations of meanings reflect our perception and understanding of things. There are two main types of association involved in semantic change: similarity of meanings and contiguity of meanings.
A very productive type of semantic change is metaphor which is based on similarity of meanings. This is a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some ways resembles the other. Similarity of meaning may be based on different aspects of objects: similarity of their forms - the nose of a kettle, the bridge of the nose, the lip of a crater, the eye of a potato; similarity of position in space - the leg of the table, the foot of the hill, the mouth of a river, etc. In many languages there are regular patterns which serve as basis for metaphoric transference. The above examples illustrate the most obvious pattern of transfer of terms for parts of the human body to external objects in nature. Another obvious pattern is the case when names of animals through metaphoric transference are used to give names to people whose behaviour resembles that of animals, e.g. cat – (fig.) an excitable woman, goose – simpleton, cow – awkward woman, cuckoo – crazy person, chicken – coward etc.
A subtype of metaphoric transferences is the so-called synesthesia. Synesthetic transferences are based on similarities of the physical and emotional perception of two objects. Adjectives denoting physical properties (temperature, light, size, taste, etc.) come to denote emotional or intellectual properties: a sharp smell, a warm feeling, a cold reception, a sharp pain, soft music, a bright idea, etc. Within verbs synesthetic transferences are observed in lexemes denoting physical qualities which come to denote emotions and intellectual activity: to grate ‘have an irritating effect’, to rasp on one’s nerves ‘to annoy’, to crack a code ‘to decipher a code’, to smash a theory ‘to disprove a theory’.
The above examples in no way exhaust all the multitude of metaphoric transferences, which result in appearance of many new LSVs in polysemantic lexemes. The role of metaphor is extremely important in the processes of cognition and nomination. In their book “Metaphors We Live By” [Lakoff, Johnson 1980] the authors contend that metaphor is not only a language phenomenon but also a daily conceptual reality when we are thinking about one sphere in the terms of another one. Based on similarity of objects, metaphor is closely linked with man’s cognitive activity, as it presupposes cognition through comparing objects.
Metonymy or contiguity of meanings may be described as the semantic process of associating two referents, one of which makes part of the other or is closely connected with it. There are various patterns of metonymy based on spatial, temporal relations, relations of cause and result.
There are distinguished certain patterns of metonymic transferences. Thus, to examples of metonymy based on spatial relations belongs the pattern when people or objects placed in the proximity of some other object, on or within the object get the name of that object. In the sentence Keep the table amused, the word table denotes people sitting around the table. In the example The hall applauded people got the name hall according to their location inside the hall at the moment. This pattern of spatial relations can be described as the relations between ‘the container and the thing contained’.
In the semantic structure of the lexeme school we find the following LSVs: school - 1) institution for educating children; 2) process of being educated in a school: Is he old enough for school?; 3) time when teaching is given, lessons: School begins at 9 a.m.; 4) all the pupils in a school: The whole school was present at the football match. LSVs 2 and 3 express metonymic transferences based on temporal relations, LSV4 – those based on spatial relations.
To regular patterns of metonymic transferences also refer instrumental relations: the lexeme tongue ‘the organ of speech’ developed the meaning ‘language’: e.g. ‘mother tongue’, because tongue is an instrument which produces speech; the relations between the material and the thing made of this material: silver, bronze, e.g. ‘table silver: spoons, forks, teapots, dishes’; ‘the quality – the subject of this quality’: beauty - 1) combination of qualities that give pleasure to the senses; 2) person, thing, feature that is beautiful: Isn’t she a beauty!; talent - 1) special, aptitude, faculty, gift; 2) persons of talent; ‘action – the agent of the action’: support as a noun: 1) supporting or being supported; 2) sb. or sth. that supports; and some other patterns.
A variety of metonymy is synechdoche, that is the transference of meaning from part to whole, e.g. the case when the nouns denoting the parts of human body come to denote human beings, as the word hand meaning ‘a workman’ (Hands wanted) and ‘a sailor’ (All hands on deck!), the word head meaning cattle (a hundred head of cattle) and others.
The diachronic approach to the word meaning makes it possible to point out the results of semantic change. Results of semantic change can be observed in the changes of the denotational meaning of the word and also its connotational component.
Changes in the denotational meaning may result in either restriction or extension of meaning. Restriction or narrowing of meaning is transference of meaning from a wider, more general meaning to a narrower one: the modern verb to starve ‘suffer or die of hunger’ in Old English meant ‘to die’, disease ‘illness’ previously had the meaning ‘discomfort of any kind’, Restriction of meaning can be also illustrated by the example deer (Old English deor) which previously denoted ‘any animal’ and now it denotes ‘(kind of) graceful, quick-running animal, the male of which has horns’. This is also the case with the word fowl which in Old English denoted ‘any bird’ but in Modern English denotes ‘a domestic hen or rooster’. The word meat, which is today limited to ‘flesh food’ originally meant food in general, as is indicated in the archaic phrase meat and drink ‘food and drink’.
If the word with the new meaning comes to be used in the specialized vocabulary, it is usual to speak of specialization of meaning. For instance we can observe restriction and specialization in the verb to glide which had the meaning ‘to move gently and smoothly’ and has now acquired a restricted and specialized meaning ‘to fly with no engine’.
Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the word to a wider variety of referents. This is described as extension of meaning and may be illustrated by the word target which originally meant ‘a small round shield’ but now means ‘anything that is fired at’ and also ‘any result aimed at’. The word to help previously meant ‘to treat, to cure’, it has undergone extension of meaning, at present it means ‘do sth. for the benefit of’. If the word with the extended meaning passes from the specialized vocabulary into common use, we describe the result of the semantic change as the generalization of meaning. “Numerous examples of this process have occurred in the religious field, where office, doctrine, novice and many other terms have taken on a more general, secular range of meanings” (Crystal, p.138). Here also belong such examples as the word camp previously belonging to military terms which at present denotes ‘place where people live in tents or huts for a time’.
To semantic change based on extension also refers desemantization [Гак 1977: 32 - 34], that is weakening of the lexical meaning of the word and its grammaticalization. Many verbs of motion lost their meaning ‘manner of moving’ in such examples as to run a risk, to fall into disuse, to fly into a temper, to come to a conclusion. In word combinations like to keep alive, to grow angry, etc. the first components keep, grow have undergone desemantization.
Changes in the denotational component of meaning can be accompanied by changes in the connotational component of meaning which include: a) pejorative development or the acquisition by the word of some derogatory emotive charge, e.g. the word silly originally denoted ‘happy, blessed’ and then gradually it acquired a derogatory meaning ‘foolish, weak-minded’; Modern English villain ‘wicked man’ in Middle English neutrally described a serf; b) ameliorative development or the improvement of the connotational component of meaning, e.g. minister which in one of its meanings originally denoted ‘a servant, an attendant’, but now - ‘a civil servant of higher rank, a person administering a department of state’; angel initially having the meaning ‘a messenger’ developed positive connotational semes ‘lovely, innocent, kind, thoughtful’.
Sure enough, not every word changed its meaning in the course of history of the language. But the diachronic analysis of various types of semantic changes proves that the lexical meaning is one of the most dynamic, changeable elements of the language system, its flexibility is conditioned by the necessity to adequately reflect the constantly changing world.
Synonymy
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.
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.