Lexical Synonymy and Antonymy

The problem of synonymy (from Greek sinonymia – ‘of the same name’) is one of the most complicated and disputable in linguistic theory. There are a great many definitions of the term, but there is no universally accepted one. Traditionally the synonyms are defined as words different in sound-form, but identical or similar in meaning. But this definition has been severely criticized on many points.

Firstly, this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words. It is inconceivable that polysemantic words could be synonymous in all their meanings. The verb look, e.g. is usually treated as a synonym of see, watch, observe, etc, but in another of its meanings it is not synonymous with this group of words but rather with the verbs seem, appear (cf. “to look at somebody” and “to look pale”). The number of synonymic sets of a polysemantic word tends as a rule to be equal to the number of individual meanings the word possesses.

Secondly, it seems impossible to speak of identity or similarity of lexical meaning as a whole as it is only the denotational component that may be described as identical or similar. We must take into consideration the connotational meaning of the word.

Thirdly, identity of meaning is very rare even among monosemantic words. In fact cases of complete synonymy are very few and are, as a rule, in terminological vocabulary.

Taking into consideration the above facts, we’d like to give a detailed definition of synonyms. Synonyms are two or more words, belonging to the same part of speech, possessing more or less identical denotational meaning, interchangeable at least in some contexts without any considerable alteration in the semantic structure, but differing in morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, connotation, style, valency and idiomatic use. For example, strange – queer – odd – quaint, ugly – hideous – monstrous – plain – unattractive – unsightly.

This definition gives some criteria of synonymy (identity of denotational meaning, part of speech meaning, interchangeability), but has the main drawbacks. There are no objective criteria of “identity” or “similarity” or sameness of denotational meaning. How can a scholar define identity? Should the denotational meanings be explained in the same words in a dictionary? For now the final decision is based on the linguistic intuition of the scholar.

As for the criterion of interchangeability or substitution in linguistic contexts, this approach also invites criticism. Words interchangeable in any given context are very rare. Besides, words synonymous in lexical contexts may display no synonymity in others. For example, hope, expectation, anticipation are considered to be synonymous because they all mean “having smth in mind which is likely to happen...” But expectation may be either of the good or of evil. Anticipation is as a rule an expectation of smth good. Hope is not only a belief but a desire that some event would happen. The stylistic difference is also quite marked. The Roman words anticipation and expectation are formal literary words used only by educated speakers, whereas the native monosyllabic hope is stylistically neutral. Moreover, they differ in idiomatic usage. Only hope is possible in such set expressions as to hope against hope, to lose hope, to pin one's hopes on smth. Neither expectation nor anticipation could be substituted into the following quotation from T. Eliot: “You don't know what hope is until you have lost it”.

Synonimic relation usually unite a group or a set of words which is called a synonymic set. Synonymic set is a well-established group of words of modern language connected by synonymic relations. The number of members in such a set is nearly unlimited. Polysemantic words can enter several synonymic sets. The semantic opposition is made up by a lexico-semantic variant of the word, e.g. sense – meaning – significance, sense – intelligence – reason – judgement, sense – feeling. Elements of synonymic sets are not synonyms, so feeling ≠ meaning.

The members of the set are identified in relation to the dominant of the set. Synonymic dominant is the central term of a synonymic set possessing the following characteristic features:

1) high frequency of usage;

2) broad combinability, i.e. ability to be used in combinations with various classes of words;

3) broad general meaning;

4) lack of connotations;

5) it may substitute for other synonyms at least in some contexts;

6) it’s often used to define other synonyms in dictionary definitions.

In the synonymic set strange – queer – odd – quaint,the synonymic dominant is strange, being morphologically the simplest, stylistically neutral and syntagmatically most movable.

According to the degree of synonymity synonyms can be absolute (perfect, complete) and partial.

Absolute (perfect, complete) synonyms – words coinciding in all their shades of meaning and in all their stylistic characteristics and having equivalent distribution. Absolute synonyms are rare in a language, they are basically terms: pilot – airman – flyer – flyingman, screenwriter – scriptwriter – scriptwriter, semasiology – semantics, word-formation – word-building, word – lexeme.

Synonyms usually differ in some properties: connotation, shades of denotative meaning (peripheric seme), collocability and the like. Synonymy of this kind can be called partial or incomplete. Incomplete synonyms ban be called semantic and stylistic.

Semantic (ideographic) synonyms – words conveying the same notion, having similar connotational meaning, but differing in denotational of meaning, and so in use and collocability. For example, to understand – to realize – to follow, get, grasp, know, learn, make out, take in; to wait for (I am waiting for him) – to expect (I am expecting him to come); healthy – wholesome (suggestive of health or wellbeing, esp in appearance) – sound (free from damage, injury, decay, etc).

Ideographic synonyms comprise unequal semantic features, e.g. to laugh – to giggle – to guffaw. In this case one can speak of relative synonyms, as they have semantic features of different degree of intensity, e.g. liking – attachment – affection – fondness – love. Their status is a controversial one.

Stylistic synonyms are words identical in denotative meaning but differing only in the connotational meaning, e.g. feed – nourish, deed – action, pal – associate, to reckon – to estimate, to walk – to promenade, intelligent – smart.

Stylistic synonyms are also the relations that exist between a neologism or an archaic word and a word of common use think – to deem, as well as synonyms differing in evaluative component лик – рожа, fat – plump.

Ideographic-stylistic synonyms are synonyms which differ both in the denotational and connotational aspects of meaning, e.g. to expect – to anticipate, to ask – to inquire.

Synonyms are syntagmatically (distributionally) different words, for example, a lot of, plenty of / a good deal of / a great number of. Compare the distribution of also and too, they always occur in different surroundings: My son was also with us – My son was with us too.

The synonyms differ in their collocability, for example in the collocation line of least resistance, one can’t substitute the last word with its synonym opposition. Let us compare the collocability of synonyms to book and to buy:

possible collocations impossible collocations

to book in advance to buy in advance

to book somebody to buy somebody

to book seats to buy seats

to buy cheaply to book cheaply

to buy from a person to book from a person

to buy a house to book a house