Section V semantic classification of words. Synonymy

Different types of grouping in lexicology. Classification of words into morpheme words, derivatives, compounds, compound-derivatives, word-families; grouping according to a common suffix or prefix; division into notional words and form words.

The importance of parts-of-speech (lexical-grammatical) classification: classes into which words are divided as having a certain general meaning underlying their concrete lexical meanings, a system of grammatical categories, specific syntactic functions and special types of form building and word-formation.

Lexical set as a group of words belonging to the same semantic field. The concept of semantic field. Semantic field as a part of reality singled out in the human experience and covered in language by a more or less autonomous lexical microsystem. Logical and contextual grouping. Grouping based on hyponymic relations. Hyponymy as a semantic relation of inclusion.

Difficulties in classifying the vocabulary into lexical sets (thematic groups) which arise from polysemy, wide scope of meaning, instability of associative links.

The difference for different languages in the lexical sets covering certain semantic fields. Theoretical and practical importance of semantic classification of the vocabulary. Semantic classification as the starting point for semantic study and comparing and contrasting words of different languages. Semantic classification as used in EFL teaching.

Meaning equivalence of words (synonymy). The concept and the term of synonyms. Synonyms as members of a thematic group which a) belong to the same part of speech and b) are so close to one another semantically that their correct use in speech can be assumed only if the shades of meaning and stylistic connotations which keep them apart are carefully and minutely investigated. Approaches to the study of synonyms (the one based on words as such and the contextual one). The Russian-Soviet tradition in the study of synonyms. Ideographic and stylistic synonyms. The method of componential analysis. Meaning equivalence as realized in speech. Synonymic condensation as one of the typical cases of meaning equivalence, a stylistic device which is firmly rooted in the English language. Euphemisms as a subtype of synonyms. Antonyms.

Working Definitions of Principal Concepts

Parts of speech	Classes into which words are divided because of their having: A) a certain general meaning underlying their concrete lexical meaning; B) a system of grammatical categories C) specific syntactic functions D) special types of form building and word formation
Context	1) linguistic environment of a unit of language which reveals the conditions and the characteristic features of its usage in speech; 2) semantically complete passage of written speech sufficient to establish the meaning of a word (phrase)
Semantic field	a part of extralinguistic reality covered in language by a lexical microsystem
Lexical set	a group of words belonging to the same semantic field

Synonyms	members of a thematic group which a) belong to the same part of speech b) are so close to one another in meaning that we cannot use them correctly in speech unless we are aware of the shades of meaning and stylistic connotations that distinguish them
Ideographic synonyms	synonyms which differ in shades of meaning
Stylistic synonyms	synonyms which differ in emotional, expressive, evaluative overtones (stylistic connotations)
Antonyms	words of the same part of speech which have contrasting meanings
Euphemisms	substitutes for words that are considered indecent, indelicate, rude, too direct or impolite and that describe the “offensive” referent in a round-about way

1. Read the following text. Use it to explain why interchangeability can not be regarded as the criterion of synonyms.

P.G.Wodehouse makes fun of dictionaries of synonyms in one of his stories. The heroes of the story often turn to dictionaries of synonyms to solve cross-word puzzles. As a result, whenever they think of something important, they express their idea not by a single word but by a long synonymic line from the Dictionary. Although logically all these words may be brought together, they are quite different:

“A slim, fair girl, tastefully attired in tailor-made tweeds, was leaning over the desk on which he kept his Dictionary of English Synonyms. She looked up as he entered, startled. “Why, Mr.Mulliner!” she exclaimed. “What has been happening? Your clothes are torn, rent, ragged, tattered and your hair is all dishevelled, untrimmed, hanging loose or negligently, at loose ends!”

George smiled a wan smile. “You are right”, he said. “And, what is more, I am suffering from extreme fatigue, weariness, lassitude, exhaustion, prostration and languor”.

The girl gazed at him, a divine pity in her soft eyes. ”I’m sorry”, she murmured. “So very sorry, grieved, distressed, afflicted, pained, mortified, dejected and upset”.

George took her hand. Her sweet sympathy had effected the cure for which he had been seeking so long.

“Susan, I love you. Will you be my wife, married woman, matron, spouse, help-meet, consort, partner, or better half?”

“Oh, George!” said Susan. “Yes, yea, ay, aye! Decidedly, unquestionably, indubitably, incontrovertibly, and past all dispute!”

It doesn’t require a careful investigation of the vocabulary to see, that although the words ‘wife’, ‘married woman’, ‘better half’, etc. may be logically brought together, linguistically these words are as different as they can be. The same applies to triads like ‘kid-child-infant’, ‘lass-girl-maiden’, ‘to kick the bucket-to die-to pass away’, etc. Although in an abstract way ‘the young of the human species’ can be described as a ‘kid’, ‘a child’, ‘an infant’, these words are, linguistically, incompatible. To allude to a child by using the words ‘infant’ or ‘kid’ would require a very specific linguistic situation. The difference between the actual forms is great, and we cannot help feeling that by bringing the words together we concentrate on the extralinguistic object, and our attention is distracted from the language to a certain extralinguistic thing [11].

2. Read the text. What example does the author adduce to show that no two words have exactly the same meaning? How is synonymy viewed by A.I.Smirnitsky?

When we study words of a language in terms of their meanings we come to the conclusion that it is very difficult (or even impossible) to find two words whose meanings would be exactly the same. Human language does not tolerate complete synonymy, overall semantic identity of two or more words. To illustrate this let us consider the following passage:

“He seemed particularly cheerio, you know”, said the Hon.Freddy.

“Particularly what?” inquired the Lord High Steward.

“Cheerio, my lord”, said Sir Wigmore with a deprecating bow.

“I do not know whether that is a dictionary word”, said his lordship entering it upon his notes with meticulous exactness, “but I take it to be synonymous with “cheerful”.

The Hon. Freddy appealed to, said he thought he meant more merry and bright, you know.

“May we take it that he was in exceptionally lively spirits”, suggested Counsel.

“Take it in any spirit you like”, muttered the witness, adding more happily, “Take a peg of John Begg”.

“The deceased was particularly lively and merry when he went to bed”, said Sir Wigmore, frowning horribly, “and looking forward to his marriage in the near future. Would that be a fair statement of his condition?”

The Hon. Freddy agreed to this.

This example shows very clearly how synonymy is apprehended by a natural user of the language. Synonymy simply doesn’t figure in his “lexical world”! A young man fails in his attempt to find another word with the same meaning, because no two words are ever semantically identical.

The word “cheerio” doesn’t mean quite what they finally decided upon. When discussed in this way the actual meaning and connotations of “cheerio” are entirely forgotten.

One stops and wonders and cannot understand how it happens that people keep talking about synonyms but, somehow, the linguistic status of synonyms, the role of synonyms in language remains obscure.

In A.I.Smirnitsky’s “Leksikologija anglijskogo jazyka” which, we think, is among the best ever written on the subject, only about half a page is devoted to synonyms. That is what it says: “…In conclusion it should be observed that such phenomena as synonyms, metaphorical usage, archaisms, etc. should not be included as separate topics into the course of lexicology. These phenomena should be mentioned when describing or analysing the lexical system of a language only incidentally, only insofar as it is of importance for the basic subject under investigation. Knowing something about these things does help to understand certain connotations within the complex system of words, but their investigation, or even their more or less detailed discussion, should be related to the course of general semantics, or possibly even to the course of theory of literature”.

“Of course”, says Smirnitsky, “when necessary, footnotes can be supplied in order that certain more or less typical facts may be brought to the students’ notice. These, however, should appear only in the form of footnotes or a kind of introductory or supplementary remarks, but never, not by any means, as a full-fledged section of lexicology”. If you have a typical semantic group then you could mention that the choice of the right word is also connected with stylistic differentiation, or you could also mention that certain words are not literary or neutral and should be banned from ordinary usage. You could make these remarks by the way, but the synonymy of a given language (sinonimika dannogo jazyka) as such cannot be regarded as a separate section of the course, for the sum total of synonyms (sovokupnost’ sinonimov) doesn’t form an actual, real group in its own right. It is not a particular lexical system within a given language”. This is how synonymy is viewed by linguists [12].

3. Read the passage below and use it while discussing the problem of semantic fields.

In recent years there has been a good deal of work devoted to the investigation of lexical systems in the vocabularies of different languages, with particular reference to such fields (or domains) as kinship, colour, flora and fauna, weights and measures, military ranks, moral and aesthetic evaluation, and various kinds of knowledge, skill and understanding. The results obtained have conclusively demonstrated that there are semantic distinctions made in one language which are not made in another; moreover, that particular fields may be categorized in a totally different way by different languages. This fact is expressed in Saussurean terms by saying that each language imposes a specific form on the a priory undifferentiated substance of the content-plane [13].