Posted at 10.07.2018
"Complete synonymy is uncommon, and absolute synonymy hardly prevails. " Lyons (1981:148). Fromkin et al. (2003: 181) state that ''no two words ever have exactly the same interpretation. ''. These quotations seem odd and new to many people in general and I in particular. It is conventionally known that there are many synonyms in the lexicon posting the same meaning. If a educator asks one of his students what the contrary of the adjective 'big' is, the learner, based on his past knowledge, will directly answers 'large'. Languages in general- concerning speak- have many synonyms, particularly the English language. It is rich in many examples such as plentiful and rich, rather and attractive, incorporate and mix, student and pupil, sick and ill, contentment and joy and many others, just to name a few. These words promote the same denotation- literal meaning making them synonyms and can be used as substitutes for each and every others to avoid repetition on paper and speaking. As to the complexity of interpretation, a person looking for swapping a expression with another expression must choose a precise and exact synonym. In this regard, many semanticists have shown studies on synonymy from different perspectives. Thus, there is a consensus about the difficulty of finding two perfect, absolute or complete words writing the same synonymy. Semanticists have attacked the translation of words in two different languages as these words cannot signify exactly the same due to different linguistic and social contexts they happen. But what about two synonyms in the same language?. The rarity or impossibility of perfect synonymy can clearly be talked about through the definition of synonymy, types- range of synonymy and conditions of perfect synonymy, substitution tests and reasons of rarity.
Defining synonymy is a difficult process. Maja, (2009) has argued that whenever it comes to supplying a clear, correct and correct definition of synonymy, many issues arise. There are numerous approaches with many meanings of synonymy and types of synonyms because there are different ways that synonyms may differ. Maja, (2009) has identified synonymy as the phenomenon of two or more different linguistic forms with the same so this means. Those linguistic forms are called synonyms, e. g. hazard and risk can be substituted with each other in certain contexts. Synonymy in semantics can be an inter-lexical sense relationship. Synonymy is sameness of so this means (Palmer F. R. 1996:88, Lyons John 1996:60). Fromkin et al. (2003:181) has mentioned that: ''there are words that sound different but have the same or nearly the same so this means, such words are called synonyms. ''. John (1995) in addition has presented a classification indicating that expressions with the same interpretation are synonyms. Two important points should be observed about the definition. Firstly, it does not restrict connection of synonymy to lexemes; it allows for the likelihood that lexically simple expressions may have the same meaning as lexically intricate expressions. Secondly, it creates identity, not merely similarity, of signifying the criterion of synonymy. It is noteworthy that linguists and semanticists such as Palmer, Lyons and Fromkin agree that synonymy means two words with the same so this means. I completely agree with these explanations from the perspective of sameness. However, Personally i think that such synonyms look like in meaning however they would change in formality, style, or of some other areas of connotations. All in all, the definition of synonymy continues to be a controversial subject matter among semanticists and difficult to find a specific explanation for synonymy.
The scale of synonymy is very important to all to determine the partnership between two synonyms. Cruse (2000:157) promises that a scale of synonymy can be proven. The scale involves absolute synonymy, cognitive synonymy and near-synonymy. First, overall synonymy is defined as the entire identity of all meanings of two or more lexemes in all contexts. However, it is unnatural for a terminology to have absolute synonyms, or lexemes with a similar meaning. It is generally accepted that utter synonymy is impossible or non-existent. It really is regarded as only as a referential point on the alleged range of synonymy or the initial criterion for the defining of synonymy (Cruse, 2000, 157). Second, as there are no two lexemes with absolutely the same meaning and no real synonyms, cognitive synonymy is what most semanticists would consider as synonymy. Lyons (1996:63) promises that many theories of semantics would limit the notion of synonymy from what he calling descriptive or cognitive synonymy, which is the individuality of descriptive meaning. Third, near-synonyms are lexemes whose so this means is relatively close or more or less similar (mist/fog, stream/brook, dive/plunge). However, the given description of near-synonymy is hazy, because there isn't any precise relationship between synonymy and semantic similarity. Near-synonymy is associated with overlapping of so this means and senses. The senses of near-synonyms overlap to a great degree, however, not completely (Murphy, 2003, 155). In addition, unlike cognitive synonyms, near-synonyms can contrast in certain contexts: He was killed, but I could assure you he was NOT murdered, madam (Cruse, 2000, 159). Near-synonymy is regularly within dictionaries of synonyms or thesauri where the majority of the terms stated under a single dictionary entry are not regarded as cognitive synonyms (e. g. govern - immediate, control, determine, require).
The scale shown by Cruse is the most standard. There's also other views. Lyons (1981:148) claims that there are utter synonymy, complete synonymy, descriptive synonymy and near-synonymy. Noticeably, there's a new type in comparison to Cruse. Regarding to Lyons (1981), complete synonyms must have the identity of all descriptive, cultural and expressive interpretation in every contexts. Since most lexemes are polysemous- have different senses in different contexts, Murphy (2004:146) introduces logical synonyms- such as full synonyms and sense synonyms and near-synonyms. Denotationally similar words, whose all senses are identical such as (toilet/john), are called full synonyms, whereas sense synonyms share one or more senses, but are different in others, i. e. they may have at least one identical sense (couch/couch). Near-synonyms, as words with similar senses, are context-dependent. Cognitive synonyms are probably what Murphy (2003) respect as sense synonyms. Finally, there are many types of synonyms suggested by linguists and semanticists regarding the types of synonymy.
By now, it is almost true that complete synonymy is incredibly exceptional- at least a connection between lexemes- in natural dialects. According to John (1995), two or more expressions are perfectly or absolutely private if, and only when, they meet three conditions. First, almost all their meanings are identical. In other words, standard dictionaries of English treat the adjectives 'big' and 'large' as polysemous. For example, 'they are in a big/large house'. The two words would generally be regarded as synonymous. However, it is not hard to show these adjectives are not synonymous in all their meanings: i. e. , that they fail to meet condition (1) and are also only partially, not absolutely or flawlessly. 'I will inform my big sister' is lexically ambiguous, by virtue of 'big'; in a way that 'I will tell my large sister' is not. All three phrases are well-formed and interpretable. They show that 'big' has at least one meaning which it does not share with large. Second, they can be synonymous in every contexts. The main issue this is what we call collocations- a set of contexts where an expression can occur. It might be thought that the collocational range of an expression is wholly dependant on its so this means, so that synonyms must necessarily have the same collocational range. But this does not appear to be so. For instance, 'big' and 'large' can be used as an example. There are several contexts where 'big' can't be substituted for 'large' (in the meaning which 'big' stocks with' large') without violating the collocational restrictions of the one or the other. For instance, 'large' is not interchangeable with 'big' in: you are making a huge mistake. The sentence 'you are making a huge mistake' is not only grammatically well-formed, but also significant. It is however collocationally unacceptable or unidiomatic. And yet 'big' seems to have the same so this means in 'you are making a major problem' as it can in phrases such as 'a big house', that we're able to, as we've seen, swap ' a sizable house'.
It is attempting to argue, in this case, that there must be some delicate difference of lexical meaning which makes up about the collocational variances, such that it is not synonymy, but near-synonymy, that is involved. Third, these are semantically equal i. e. , their interpretation or meanings are similar on all measurements of so this means, descriptive and non-descriptive. Essentially the most widely recognized dimension of and therefore is relevant to the condition is descriptive or propositional interpretation. I think it is enough to say that two expressions have the same descriptive so this means if propositions made up of the one automatically imply otherwise equivalent propositions including the other, and vice versa. By this criterion, 'big' and 'large' are descriptively synonymous (in another of their meanings and over a certain range of contexts). For instance, one cannot assert that someone lives in a large house and refuse that they reside in a huge house. Another example is between the words 'bachelor' and 'unmarried'. Some individuals deny that these two expressions are descriptively synonymous on the grounds a divorced man who's not hitched is not a bachelor. For expressive or socio-expressive interpretation, in order to find out that two or more descriptively synonymous expressions differ in respect of the amount or nature of these expressive so this means, it is apparent that a complete group of words including huge, great, gigantic and colossal are usually more expressive with their speakers' emotions towards what they are talking about than very big or large, with that they are perhaps descriptively synonymous. It really is difficult to compare huge, tremendous, gigantic and colossal in conditions of their degree of expressivity. But speakers may have clear intuitions about several of them. In the long run, such conditions can be used to identify whether the two lexemes are synonyms or not and the three conditions have proved that perfect synonyms are not available in virtually any language.
Palmer (1981) differentiates between synonyms in terms of dialects, styles, emotive and evaluative worth, collocational constraints and overlap of meanings of words. First, some synonyms select different dialects of the terms. For instance, the word movie is utilized in the United States and film can be used in Britain. Second, some synonyms are used in several styles predicated on formality; colloquial, formal. For instance, depart (formal), go (informal). Third, some words vary only in their emotive or evaluative beliefs but their cognitive interpretation is the same. For instance, hide, conceal. Fourth, some words are at the mercy of collocational restraints, i. e. they occur only with specific words. For instance, rancid occurs with butter, addled with eggs. Fifth, the meanings of some words overlap. For instance, older, adult, ripe. If we take each of these words, we will have a larger set of synonyms. Palmer implies a substitution test for judging whether two linguistic items are synonyms or not. Because perfect synonyms are mutually interchangeable in all contexts, it is unusual to find perfect synonyms in a particular dialect. Anonyms are yet another way of evaluating synonymy. For example, superficial is the opposite of profound and deep, while shallow is the contrary of profound only. Briefly, the real test of synonymy is substitutability: the ability of two words to be substituted for one another with out a change in meaning. For instance, the example below provides the verb assist. The research assistant was open to assist patients doing the survey. If help is a synonym of assist, then it should be able to be substituted for help out with the above example with out a change in meaning: The study assistant was available to help patients completing the review. Help and assist can be considered as absolute synonyms, because the two sentences are similar in meaning, at least in the above mentioned contexts.
Linguists and semanticists have thoroughly studied synonymy. Subsequently, multiple reasons have been suggested regarding the impossibility of finding perfect synonyms. First of all, Maja (2009) argued that the function or use of one of both lexemes would steadily become unneeded or unmotivated and, because of this, it could soon be deserted or dropped. Second of all, their interchangeability in every the contexts can neither be showed nor proven, for, on one hand, the amount of contexts is infinite, and, on the other palm, the exceptions from overall interchangeability are inescapable. Therefore, the lexicons of natural languages don't have absolute synonymy. Thirdly, Edmonds and Hirst (2002) also argued that if words were truly synonymous, they might need to "be able to be substituted one for the other in virtually any context where their good sense is denoted without change to fact value, communicative result, or ‹meaning. Fourthly, each linguistic form is polysemous such that it is difficult to two lexemes posting whose all meanings are equivalent in every contexts.
In conclusion, there is a consensus among linguists and semanticists about the impossibility of finding two perfect linguistic varieties in any vocabulary. They have got attributed the impossibility to many reasons. Some semanticists attempted to simplify the problem of types of synonymy by classifying synonyms predicated on their own perspectives. Therefore, there are many different kinds advised by them so that it is difficult to find a specific definition set by them. All studies conducted on synonymy have demonstrated that no perfect synonyms are located in a words.