Ministry of Education of the Republic of Moldova

Institute of International Relations of Moldova

Foreign Languages Department
English Philology Chair

Individual work on Lexicology

Topic: “Stylistic synonymy”

Submitted by:

Checked by:

Chișinău, 2015
Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................... 3
Chapter One : The Nature and Definition of Synonyms .......................... 4
1.1 Synonymy and its characteristics .................................................... 4
1.2 Neutralisation and the synonymic dominant ................................... 5
Chapter Two: Classification of synonyms ................................................ 7
2.1. Stylistic, ideographic and ideographic-stylistic classification ........ 7
Conclusion................................................................................................. 9
Bibliography ............................................................................................ 10
Introduction

The semasiological category of synonymy characterizes all the languages, but every
language shows specific features, and possesses a specific synonymic system. Noticed even from
the antiquity, the problems of synonymy and synonyms have attracted a permanent attention on
the language researchers’ part. The onomasiological category of synonyms, as well as the
synonymic relations as a network, which could explain the systematic character of the
vocabulary, have attracted the attention of the linguists for a long time; the proof is the growing
number of works dedicated to their research.
The last two centuries are known both for the reevaluation of the discussions and as an
important stage especially for the evaluation and classification of examples. Nowadays, the
concept of synonymy is evaluated and used in almost every linguistic field.
Synonymy is one of modern linguistics' most controversial problems. The very existence of
words traditionally called synonyms is disputed by some linguists; the nature and essence of the
relationships of these words is hotly debated and treated in quite different ways by the
representatives of different linguistic schools.
Even though one may accept that synonyms in the traditional meaning of the term are
somewhat elusive and, to some extent, fictitious it is certain that there are words in any
vocabulary which clearly develop regular and distinct relationships when used in speech.

3
Chapter One : The Nature and Definition of Synonyms
1.1 Synonymy and its characteristics
Taking up similarity of meaning and contrasts of phonetic shape, we observe that every
language has in its vocabulary a variety of words, kindred in meaning but distinct in morphemic
composition, phonemic shape and usage, ensuring the expression of most delicate shades of
thought, feeling and imagination. The more developed the language, the richer the diversity and
therefore the greater the possibilities of lexical choice enhancing the effectiveness and precision
of speech. Thus, slay is the synonym of kill but it is elevated and more expressive involving
cruelty and violence. The way synonyms function may be seen from the following example:
Already in this half-hour of bombardment hundreds upon hundreds of men would have been
violently slain, smashed, torn, gouged, crushed, mutilated (Aldington).
The synonymous words smash and crush are semantically very close, they combine to give
a forceful representation of the atrocities of war. Even this preliminary example makes it obvious
that the still very common definitions of synonyms as words of the same language having the
same meaning or as different words that stand for the same notion are by no means accurate and
even in a way misleading. By the very nature of language every word has its own history, its
own peculiar motivation, its own typical contexts. And besides there is always some hidden
possibility of different connotation and feeling in each of them. Moreover, words of the same
meaning would be useless for communication: they would encumber the language, not enrich it.
If two words exactly coincide in meaning and use, the natural tendency is for one of them to
change its meaning or drop out of the language.
Thus, synonyms are words only similar but not identical in meaning. This definition is
correct but vague. E. g. horse and animal are also semantically similar but not synonymous. A
more precise linguistic definition should be based on a workable notion of the semantic structure
of the word and of the complex nature of every separate meaning in a polysemantic word.
The basis of a synonymic opposition is formed by the denotational component. It will be
remembered that the term opposition means the relationship of partial difference between two
partially similar elements of a language. A common denotational component forms the basis of
the opposition in synonymic group. All the other components can vary and thus form the
distinctive features of the synonymic oppositions. Synonyms can therefore be defined in terms of
linguistics as 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
in morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, connotations, style, valency

4
and idiomatic use. Additional characteristics of style, emotional colouring and valency peculiar
to one of the elements in a synonymic group may be absent in one or all of the others. The
definition is of necessity very bulky and needs some commenting upon.
The verbs experience, undergo, sustain and suffer, for example, come together, because all
four render the notion of experiencing something. The verb and the noun experience indicate
actual living through something and coming to know it first-hand rather than from hearsay.
Undergo applies chiefly to what someone or something bears or is subjected to, as in to undergo
an operation, to undergo changes. Compare also the following example from L.P. Smith: The
French language has undergone considerable and more recent changes since the date when the
Normans brought it into England. In the above example the verb undergo can be replaced by its
synonyms suffer or experience without any change of the sentence meaning. The difference is
neutralised. Synonyms, then, are interchangeable under certain conditions specific to each group.
This seems to call forth an analogy with phonological neutralisation.

1.2 Neutralisation and the synonymic dominant

Now, it will be remembered that neutralisation is the absence in some contexts of a
phonetic contrast found elsewhere or formerly in the language. It appears we are justified in
calling semantic neutralisation the suspension of an otherwise functioning semantic opposition
that occurs in some lexical contexts. And yet suffer in this meaning (‘to undergo’), but not in the
example above, is characterised by connotations implying wrong or injury. No semantic
neutralisation occurs in phrases like suffer atrocities, suffer heavy losses. The implication is of
course caused by the existence of the main intransitive meaning of the same word, not
synonymous with the group, i.e. ‘to feel pain’. Sustain as an element of this group differs from
both in shade of meaning and style. It is an official word and it suggests undergoing affliction
without giving way.
A further illustration will be supplied by a group of synonymous nouns: hope, expectation,
anticipation. They are considered to be synonymous, because they all three mean ‘having
something in mind which is likely to happen’. They are, however, much less interchangeable
than the previous group because of more strongly pronounced difference in shades of meaning.
Expectation may be either of good or of evil. Anticipation, as a rule, is a pleasurable expectation
of something good. Hope is not only a belief but a desire that some event would happen. The
stylistic difference is also quite marked. The Romance 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: hope against hope, lose hope, pin one’s hopes on sth. Neither expectation nor

5
anticipation could be substituted into the following quotation from T.S. Eliot: You do not khow
what hope is until you have lost it. Taking into consideration the corresponding series of
synonymous verbs and verbal set expressions: hope, anticipate, expect, look forward to, we shall
see that separate words may be compared to whole set expressions. Look forward to is also
worthy of note, because it forms a definitely colloquial counterpart to the rest. It can easily be
shown, on the evidence of examples, that each synonymic group comprises a dominant element.
This synonymic dominant is the most general term of its kind potentially containing the specific
features rendered by all the other members of the group, as, for instance, undergo and hope in
the above. The synonymic dominant should not be confused with a generic term or a hyperonym.
A generic term is relative. It serves as the name for the notion of the genus as distinguished from
the names of the species — hyponyms . For instance, animal is a generic term as compared to
the specific names wolf, dog or mouse (which are called equonims) . Dog, in its turn, may serve
as a generic term for different breeds such as bull-dog, collie, poodle, etc. The recently
introduced term for this type of paradigmatic relation is hyponymy or inclusion, for example the
meaning of pup is said to be included in the meaning of dog, i.e. a more specific term is included
in a more generic one. The class of animals referred to by the word dog is wider and includes the
class referred to by the word pup. The term inclusion is somewhat ambiguous, as one might also
say that pup includes the meaning ‘dog'+the meaning ‘small’, therefore the term h y p o n y m is
preferable. We can say that pup is the hyponym of dog, and dog is the hyponym of animal, dog,
cat, horse, cow, etc. are equonyms and are co-hyponyms of animal. Synonymy differs from
hyponymy in being a symmetrical relation, i.e. if a is a synonym of b, b is the synonym of a.
Hyponymy is asymmetrical, i.e. if a is a hyponym of b, b is the hyperonym of a. The combining
forms hypo- and hyper-come from the Greek words hypo- ‘under’ and hyper- ‘over’ (cf.
hypotonic ‘having less than normal blood pressure’ and hypertonic ‘having extreme arterial
tension’).
Synonyms may also differ in emotional colouring which may be present in one element of
the group and absent in all or some of the others. Lonely as compared with alone is emotional as
is easily seen from the following examples: ... a very lonely boy lost between them and aware at
ten that his mother had no interest in him, and that his father was a stranger. (Aldridge). I shall
be alone as my secretary doesn’t come to-day (M.Dickens). Both words denote being apart from
others, but lonely besides the general meaning implies longing for company, feeling sad because
of the lack of sympathy and companionship. Alone does not necessarily suggest any sadness at
being by oneself.

6
Chapter Two: Classification of synonyms

2.1. Stylistic, ideographic and ideographic-stylistic classification

Taking into account the difference of synonyms by the three aspects of their meaning
they may be classified into stylistic, ideographic and ideographic-stylistic synonyms.

1) Stylistic synonymy implies no interchangeability in context because the underlying

situations are different, for example, children – infants, dad – father. Stylistic synonyms are
similar in the denotational aspect of meaning, but different in the pragmatic (and connotational)
aspect. Substituting one stylistic synonym for another results in an inadequate presentation of the
situation of communication.
Literary language often uses poetic words, archaisms as stylistic alternatives of neutral
words, e.g. maid for girl, bliss for happiness, steed for horse, quit for leave.
Calling and vocation in the synonymic group occupation, calling, vocation, business are
high-flown as compared to occupation and business.
In many cases a stylistic synonym has an element of elevation in its meaning, e.g. face -
visage, girl - maiden. Along with elevation of meaning there is the reverse process of
degradation: to begin - to fire away, to eat - to devour, to steal - to pinch, face - muzzle.
Other examples: “to die- to pass away”, “to begin – to commence”, “to see - to behold”, “to end -
to complete”, “horse - steed”
The main distinction between synonyms remains stylistic. But stylistic difference may be of
various kinds: it may lie in the emotional tension connoted in a word, or in the sphere of
application, or in the degree of the quality denoted.
Substituting one stylistic synonym for another results in an inadequate presentation of the
situation of communication.
2) Ideographic synonymy presents a still lower degree of semantic proximity and is
observed when the connotational and pragmatic aspects are similar, but there are certain
differences in the denotational aspect of meaning of two words, for example, forest – woods,
apartment – flat, shape – form. Though ideographic synonyms correspond to one and the same
referential area, i.e. denote the same thing or a set of closely related things, they are different in
the denotational aspect of the meaning and their interchange would result in a slight change of
the phrase they are used in.

3) Ideographic-stylistic synonymy is characterized by the lowest degree of semantic

proximity. This type of synonyms includes synonyms which differ both in the denotational and

7
connotational and / or pragmatic aspects of meaning, for example, ask – inquire, expect –
anticipate. If the synonyms in questions have the same patterns of grammatical and lexical
valency, they can still hardly be considered interchangeable in context.

Each synonymic group comprises a dominant element – synonymic dominant (also

mentioned above), which is the most general term potentially containing the specific features
rendered by all the other members of the synonymic group. In this series leave – depart – quit –
retire – clear out the verb leave, being general and both stylistically and emotionally neutral, can
stand for each of the other four terms. The other four can replace leave only when some specific
semantic component prevails over the general notion. For example, when it is necessary to stress
the idea of giving up employment and stopping work quit is preferable because in this word this
particular notion dominates over the more general idea common to the whole group.

8
Conclusion

In conclusion, starting from the different definitions of synonyms, all the delight of
synonymy lies in the fact that, in spite of similar lexical meanings of synonyms, each of them has
its special often inimitable, shades of meanings.

Whereas synonyms have common lexical meanings and express one and the same notion,
they still differ with expressive conotation. Different synonyms can also be affixed to the certain
style of speech that results in using some synonyms more often than the others in certain cases.

Modern English cannot exist without synonymy, which makes the speech much more
appellative. With the help of synonyms we are able to express different shades of one and the
same notion and with the help of stylistic synonymy the writer or the speaker produces an
elevated effect using in his writing/speech terms and learned words, poetic words, archaic words
or even literary coinages including nonce-words.

9
Bibliography

1. Crabb A.M. English Synonyms Explained.- London, 1958.

2. J. Buranov, A. Muminov. A practical course in English Lexicology .Tashkent,
1990.
3. Kuznetsova V.S. Notes on English Lexicology.- K., 1968.
4. S. S. Hidekel etal . Reading in Modern English Lexicology. L, 1975.
5. Атрушина Г. Б., Афанасьева О. В., Морозова Н. Н., Лексикология
английского языка: Учеб. пособие для студентов. — М.: Дрофа, 1999.
6. Апресян Ю.Д. Лексическая семантика. - М., 1974.
7. Гинзбург Р.З. Лексикология английского языка. М. Высшая школа, 1979.
8. И. В. АРНОЛЬД, Лексикология современного английского языка, Москва
«Высшая школа», 1986.
9. Зыкова И.В. Практический курс английской лексикологии. М.: Академия,
2006.

10