SynonyMs

Every language has in its vocabulary a lot of words, different in their phonetic shape, usage, collocation, connotations b u t similar in meanings – their denotational component is identical or nearly identical:

To slay-to kill-to do in-to murder;

Anger-wrath-rage-fury-indignation-ire.

Usually synonyms belong to the same part speech and may be interchageable in some contexts.

As the majority of English words are polysemantic, frequent words have many synonyms. The semantic structure of polysemantic words sometimes coincides in more than one meaning but never completely. Even mirror (polished surface that reflects images) and looking-glass (a mirror made of glass) are not totally identical in their meaning.

In a synonymic group loving-affectionate – devoted – fond – doting, “loving” and “devoted” are used with a positive evaluation, “affectionate” is neutral as well as “fond”; “doting” may render disapproval. “Loving” describes the inner emotional state, “affectionate” – a tender feeling which may be displayed in caressing and other manifestations, “devoted” demonstrates one’s faithfulness, readiness to spend time and effort, “doting” underlines foolish, exaggerated feeling which may be blind.

In this synonymic group its members differ in rendering the basic notion, in shades of meaning and degree of intensity.

We call such synonyms ideographic; they express the same idea but are not fully identical in their referential content.

In a synonymic group visage – countenance – face – phiz – muzzle – snout – clock – mug its members constitute stylistic synonyms and we see that the presence or absence of stylistic colouring may be also accompanied by a difference in emotional colouring and evaluation.

The difference in the shade of meaning is in many cases supported by difference in style; thus we deal with ideographic -stylistic synonyms: Mad – maniacal – crazy – crazed – insane – demented – deranged.

We see that mental disorder is rendered by synonymic words which differ not only by shades of meaning and degrees of intensity but also by their stylistic characteristics – some of them are neutral (insane), some – bookish (demented, maniacal), some – colloquial (crazy, crazed).

Synonymic groups contain usually several members differing from each other in some shades of meaning, degree of intensity, stylistic reference and emotional colouring. Synonymic dominant is the most general term of its kind, usually stylistically neutral, sharing the specific features rendered by all the other members of the group.

We must not confuse the synonymic dominant with a generic term or hyperonym - name for the notion of the genus as distinguished from the name of the species - hyponyms.

“Insect” is a generic term for “cockroach”, “ant”, “fly”, “flea”, “gnat”, “moth”, etc.

It is universally known that no two words are absolutely identical in their meanings, connotations, ways of usage, stylistic reference, frequency of occurrence. We cannot be sure that even “mothercountry” and “fatherland” are absolutely identical in their meaning, they differ in terms of usage. Thus, we cannot speak of total synonymy.

Usually synonyms are words identical with respect to their central semantic features but different in their minor or peripheral features. In this case we deal with the so-called contextual synonyms which are interchangeable only in some contexts.

Synonyms can appear in paradigmatic and syntagmatic sets. Dictionaries of synonyms include words on the basis of relatedness of their meaning. Here we deal with identity and differentiation, continuity and variability as the main parameters. Usually in dealing with synonymy we pay attention to semantic distinctions between lexical units as these distinctions in meaning and usage are very important in choosing the right word in a particular context or speech situation. In dictionaries we find a paradigmatic description of synonyms where the main accent is laid on the points of difference between them. Special supplementary notes in lexicography ("obsolete”, derogatory”, “poetic”, “vulgar”, etc.) help us to limit the wrong usage of lexical items, to avoid stylistic mistakes in choosing area of situation.