2.

Synonyms
Lexical units may be classified by the criterion of semantic similarity and semantic
contrasts. The terms generally used to denote these two types of semantic relatedness are synonymy
and antonymy.
Synonyms are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but identical or
similar in meaning. This definition has been severely criticized on many points. Firstly, this
definition can’t be applied to polysemantic words. It is inconceivable that polysemantic words could
be synonymous in all their meanings. The verb to look, e.g. is usually treated as a synonym of to
see, to watch, to observe, etc., but in another of its meanings it is not synonymous with this group of
words but rather with the verbs to seem, to appear. 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. Thus, to die and to pass away are considered to be
synonymous, but the stylistic reference of these words is entirely different and it is only the
similarity of the denotational meaning that makes them synonymous. Thirdly, it does not seem
possible to speak of identity of meaning as a criterion of synonymity since identity of meaning is
very rare even among monosemantic words. In fact cases of complete synonymy are very few and
are, as a rule, confined to technical nomenclatures where we can find monosemantic terms
completely identical in meaning as, for example, spirant and fricative in phonetics. Other examples
of complete synonyms: homeland – motherland, to moan – to groan.
So, it seems necessary to modify the traditional definition. The most adequate seems to be
the definition given by I. V. Arnold: Synonyms are two or more words of the same language,
belonging to the same part of speech and possessing one or more identical or nearly identical
denotational meanings, interchangeable, at least in some contexts, without any considerable
alteration in denotational meaning, but differing morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades
of meaning, connotations, affective value, style, valency and idiomatic use.
So, the basis of synonymic oppositions of words is naturally their denotational component.
A common denotational component can make words closely akin and brings them into a correlative
synonymic group. All the other semantic components can vary revealing the distinctive features of
synonymic oppositions.
Thus, let’s take a group of synonymous nouns: hope, expectation, anticipation. They are
considered to be synonyms because they all three mean ‘having something in mind which is likely
to happen’. They, however, have pronounced difference in meaning. Expectation may be either of
good or of evil. Anticipation is, as a rule, a pleasurable expectation of something good. Hope is not
only a belief but also a desire that some event would happen. The stylistic difference is also quite
marked. The Romance words expectation and anticipation are formal literary words used only by
educated speakers, whereas the native monosyllabic hope is stylistically neutral. They also 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. S. Eliot: You do not know what hope is until you have lost it.
Each synonymic group comprises a dominant element, the synonymic dominant, i. e. the
most general term containing the specific features rendered by all the other members of the group.
In the above quoted group of synonyms the synonymic dominant is the word hope. In the
synonymic series to get, to obtain, to acquire, to gain, to win, to earn the verb to get is a synonymic
dominant as it can stand for all the verbs of this group.
So, the dominant synonym expresses the notion common to all synonyms of the group in the
most general way, without contributing any additional information as to the manner, intensity,
duration or any attending feature of the referent, i. e. it is a typical basic-vocabulary word. Its
meaning, which is broad and generalised, more or less covers the meanings of the rest of the
synonyms, so that it may be substituted for many of them. It seems that here, at last, the idea of
interchangeability of synonyms comes into its own. And yet, each such substitution would mean an
irreparable loss of the additional information supplied by connotative components of each synonym.
The following characteristic features of the dominant synonym can be underlined:
1) high frequency of usage;
 2) broad combinability, i. e. ability to be used in combinations with various classes of
words;broad general meaning;
3) lack of connotations.
One must bear in mind that the majority of frequent words are polysemantic and the frequent
words usually have many synonyms. The result is that a polysemantic word may belong in its
various meanings to several different synonymic groups. Thus, Z.Kharitonchic gives the example of
nine synonymic groups the word part enters as the result of a very wide polysemy:
1) piece, parcel, section; segment, fragment, etc. ;
2) member, organ, constituent, element, component, etc. ;
3) share, portion, lot;
4) concern, interest, participation;
5) allotment, lot, dividend, apportionment;
6) business, charge, duty, office, function, work;
7) side, party, interest, concern, faction;
8) character, role, cue, lines;
9) portion, passage, clause, paragraph.
The synonymic dominant should not be confused with a generic term. A generic term is
relative. It serves as the name for the notion of the genus as a distinguished from the names of the
species. For instance, animal is a generic term as compared to the specific names wolf, dog, mouth,
etc. Dog, in its turn, may serve as a generic term for different breeds such as bull-dog, collie,
poodle, etc.
Synonymy has been attracting the attention of scholars for years. Various aspects of this
problem have been investigated by them. Thus, an interesting attempt at tabulating the most typical
differences between synonyms was made by W.E. Collinson who made distinction between the
following nine possibilities:
1) one term is more general than another: to refuse – to reject;
2) one term is more intense than another: to repudiate – to refuse;
3) one term is more emotive than another: to reject – to decline;
4) one term may imply moral approbation or censure but another is neutral: thrifty –
economical;
5) one term is more professional than another: decease – death;
6) one term is more literary than another: passing – death;
7) one term is more colloquial than another: turn down – refuse;
8) one term is more local or dialectal than another: flesher (Scots) – butcher;
9) one of the synonyms belongs to child talk: daddy – father.
What are the criteria of synonymy? Traditional linguistics solved this problem with the
conceptual criterion and defined synonyms as words of the same category of parts of speech
conveying the same concept but differing either in shades of meaning or in stylistic characteristics.
In contemporary research on synonymy semantic criterion is frequently used. Synonyms
are defined as words with the same denotation, or the same denotative component, but differing in
connotations, or in connotative components.
In modern researches on synonyms the criterion of interchangeability is sometimes
applied. According to this, synonyms are defined as words which are interchangeable at least in
some contexts without any considerable alteration in denotational meaning. But this criterion has
been much criticised, because there are very few synonyms that are interchangeable.
IX.2.1. Classification of Synonyms
According to K. T. Barantsev, all the synonyms are classified into four groups:
1) complete or absolute, 2) ideographic, 3) stylistic, 4) phraseological.
As it has already been mentioned, absolute synonyms are rather rare. These are synonyms
which can replace each other in any given context without the slightest alteration in denotative or
emotional meaning and connotations. Examples of this type can be found in special literature
among terms peculiar to this or that branch of knowledge, e.g. in linguistics, noun and substantive,
functional affix, flection and inflection, composition and compounding; in medicine: cephalalgia –
headache, epidermis – scarf-skin, haemorrhage – bleeding, trachea – wind-pipe, scarlet fever -
scarlatina; among names of tools, instruments, machines, technological processes: basement –
foundation, engine – motor – prime mover, fan – ventilator, knife – cutter, oil – petrol, plane –
aircraft. Some absolute synonyms appeared due to geographical divergence: lorry – truck, tin –
can, railway – railroad, pavement – sidewalk, etc.
If the difference in the meaning of synonyms concerns the notion or the emotion expressed,
the synonyms are classed as ideographic synonyms. In other words, ideographic synonyms denote
different shades of meaning or different degrees of a given quality. They are nearly identical in one
or more denotational meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts, e.g.:
beautiful – fine – handsome – pretty,
different – various,
idle – lazy – indolent,
large – great – huge – tremendous – colossal,
silent – tacit,
strange – odd – queer.
Ideographic synonyms are not homogeneous. They can be subdivided into several groups,
according to their denotational and connotational meanings:
1) Synonyms which are very close in their meaning:
horrible – terrible,
answer – reply,
thankful – grateful,
immediately – instantly – at once.
2) Synonyms which differ in their meaning considerably: translator – interpreter (the
former changes writing into a different language, the latter changes spoken words from one
language into another: Speaking through an interpreter). One more example: journey, travel,
voyage, trip (journey is associated with travelling by land, travel is associated with travelling as
profession or travelling with scientific purposes or discovering, voyage is connected with travelling
by sea or by air, trip implies travelling for a short period of time).
3) Synonyms which differ in the volume of the notion they denote: frontier – border
(frontier is the border of a country, e.g. the frontier between France and Belgium while border is
the official line that separates two countries, states or areas, so it wider in meaning, e.g. The river
lies on the border between the US and Mexico). Here also belong: illness – disease (illness is wider
is wider for it implies a weakened state of one’s health in general whereas disease means a special
kind of disorder), smell – scent (smell is wider as it implies any kind of odour whereas scent is
associated only with pleasant smells), author – writer (author creates any piece of art while writer
– only literary production), work – job (work is general term for any activity, while job means a
particular case of applying one’s labour, usually associated with a certain salary).
4) Synonyms which differ in the connotation of manner of the action, e. g.:
to look – to gaze – to glare – to stare – to peep – to glance – to peer,
to walk – to lounge – to loiter – to march – to meander – to pace – to patrol – to prance – to
plod – to ramble – to roam – to saunter – to sidle – to stagger – to stalk – to stride – to stroll
– to strut – to toddle – to tramp – to tread,
to tremble – to shudder – to shiver – to quake,
to shine – to sparkle – to gleam – to glitter – to glint – to glimmer – to glisten – to shimmer
– to twinkle – to flash,
to bring – to fetch.
5) Synonyms which differ in the degree or intensity of the action, e. g.
to alarm – to frighten – to terrify – to intimidate – to scare (to alarm implies the causing of a
milder degree of fear than to frighten; to terrify is to frighten to an extreme degree; to intimidate
usually implies pressure, threat and to scare implies the causing of sudden and often unreasoning
fear or panic);
to ask – to beg – to beseech – to implore (the verb to ask expresses the idea of making a
request for smth., to beg means “to ask for smth. in an anxious or urgent way”, to beseech
means “to ask eagerly” and to implore means “to ask for smth. in an emotional way with
earnestness”),
 to work – to toil – to slave,
to like – to love – to admire – to adore – to worship,
to shout – to yell – to below – to roar,
to satisfy – to please – to content – to gratify – to delight – to exalt,
to dislike – to hate – to dates.
6) Synonyms which differ in the degree of some quality, e.g. synonyms expressing
excellent quality:
admirable – beautiful – brilliant – capital – delightful – excellent – exquisite – fair – first-
rate – glorious – grand – magnificent – marvellous – perfect – remarkable – splendid –
superb – surpassing – wonderful – wonderous,
big – huge – enormous,
tired – exhausted.
7) Synonyms, the distinctive feature of which is based on the time, duration and quickness
of the action, e.g.:
look – glance – glimpse. All of them denote a conscious and direct endeavour to see, but a
glance is a look which is quick and sudden and a glimpse is quicker still, implying only momentary
sight.
to speak – to say,
to fear – to fright,
to beat – to strike.
Stylistic synonyms are synonymically correlated words which differ not so much in
meaning as in emotive value and stylistic sphere of application. Thus, pictorial language often
uses poetic words as stylistic alternatives of neutral ones, e.g.: nouns: maid for girl, ire for anger,
woe for sorrow, bliss for happiness, eve for evening, morn for morning, thrall for distress, steed for
horse; adjectives: lone for lonely, forlorn for distressed, jocund for merry, mute for silent; verbs:
quit for leave, quoth for said, vanquish for conquer, hie or speed for hasten, smite for hit or strike;
adverbs: haply for perhaps, full for very, etc.
The differentiation of emotional colouring makes itself evident in the following archaic
words which are stylistic synonyms, too:
oft – often,
belike – probably, possibly,
enow – enough,
aloft – high,
save – except, besides,
woe – affliction, grief,
mere – pond, lake.
The general effect of poetic and learned synonyms when used in prose or in everyday speech
is that of creating an elevated tone.
Among stylistic synonyms authors point out special groups of words which are called
euphemisms in which by a shift of meaning a word of more or less pleasant or at least inoffensive
connotation substitutes one that is harsh, obscene, indelicate or otherwise unpleasant (about
eupheisms see below).
Oppositional relations of correlated stylistic words can also be observed in synonymic
trichotomy. Cf.:
neutral elevated colloquial
child infant kid
face countenance phiz
father parent dad (daddy)
girl maiden lass (lassie)
good-bye farewell so-long, ta-ta
Stylistic synonyms can show the attitude of the speaker towards the event or process
described:
face – mug, muzzle,
head – nut,
 to eat – to lay in – to wolf.
One cannot use words mug, nut, lay in or wolf in a polite conversation or on an official
occasion.
In a great number of cases the semantic difference between synonyms is supported by the
difference in valency. In such cases we deal with phraseological synonyms. The difference in
distribution may be morphological, syntactical and lexical. Morphological valency can be illustrated
by such kind of synonyms are many – much, few – little, syntactical – by bare and naked (bare in
reference to persons is used only predicatively while naked occurs both predicatively and
attributively. The verbs to begin – to commence differ stylistically (to begin is neutral and to
commence is stylistically marked, it’s used in formal style), but their distributional difference is not
less important. Begin is generalized in its lexical meaning and becomes a semi-auxiliary when used
with an infinitive. It follows naturally that begin and not commence is the right word before an
infinitive even in formal style.
Lexical difference in distribution can be illustrated by the verbs to win – to gain. Both can
be used in combination with the noun victory: to win a victory, to gain a victory. But with the word
war only win is possible: to win a war. Other examples: ill – sick, high – tall, sunny – solar, etc.
The idea of number can be expressed by the synonyms flock – pack – herd – school – swarm
– band – gang – troop – horde – crowd:
a flock of birds, a swarm of bees,
a pack of wolves, a band of robbers,
a herd of cattle, a troop of children,
a school of whales, a horde of ruffians,
a gang of thieves, a crowd of people.
Due to polysemy synonyms often belong to several groups. Thus, the adjective ill in the
meaning ‘not feeling well’ has the synonym sick and in the meaning ‘bad, harmful’ its synonyms
are adjectives mean, foul.
G. B. Antrushina, O. V. Afanasyeva and N. N. Morozova, the authors of the manual
“English Lexicology”, point out that a more effective approach to the classification of synonyms
may be based on the definition describing synonyms as words differing in connotations. They
consider that it is more convenient to classify connotations by which synonyms differ rather than
synonyms themselves. Thus, they propose to distinguish the connotations of degree or intensity:
to surprise – to astonish – to amaze – to astound,
to shout – to yell – to bellow – to roar,
to like – to admire – to love – to adore – to worship;
nature of the emotion:
to tremble – to shiver – to shudder – to shake; the evaluative connotation which conveys the
speaker’s attitude towards the referent, labelling it as good or bad:
well-known – famous – notorious – celebrated;
the causative connotation:
to sparkle – to glitter;
the connotation of manner:
to stroll – to stride – to trot – to pace – to swagger – to stagger – to stumble;
stylistic connotations:
snack – bite – snap, etc.