CC BY
20
LEONARD DANGLLI ОГРАНИЧЕНИЯ В ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИИ СИНОНИМОВ
В статье обсуждаются различия между синонимами в плане возможности сочетаемости с другими словами. Это лишний раз подтверждает, что синонимы редко являются абсолютно эквива-лентными. Одно из ограничений называется «из-
бирательным ограничением», другие ограничения использования синонимов, которые принимаются во внимание, это идиоматическое использование и грамматические словосочетания.
Синоним, лексические ограничения, словосочетания, лексические и грамматические словосочетания.
RESTRICTIONS OF SYNONYM USE
This paper discusses the various ways synonyms differ in their capacity to combine with other words. It endeavors to support the view that synonyms are rarely equivalent in their abilities to occur with other words in set phrases. One of such limitations is called "selectional restriction", which is generally considered to be a result of the denotation of words. Moreover, other restrictions of synonym use are taken into consideration such as the idiomatic use and grammatical collocations. They are discussed both from a comparative and contrastive perspective. The paper tries to underline the importance of becoming familiar with such differences between synonyms as they are of primary importance when it comes to contextual use. A number of examples are provided throughout the paper to illustrate the various restrictions of synonyms, both lexical and non-lexical. These differences are also highlighted in a number of dictionaries, which show
that although two or more words may share the basic (denotational) meaning, they may differ in their capacity to collocate with the same words. For example, although big and large are considered synonyms, there are certain expressions where only big can be used. Thus, we can only say Big Bang, Big Brother, big name, etc. On the other hand, some collocations involve closed-class lexical items, and as a result they might be better called "grammatical collocations". One says the right answer but not a right answer, yet correct can be used in both ways. If we take the example offinish and complete, the former can be used without a direct object: Has she finished?, while the verb complete needs a direct object as we cannot create such sentences as Has she completed? This paper aims at making language users familiar with such lexical and syntactic restrictions as they are essential to the correct usage of synonyms.
Synonym, lexical restriction, combination, lexical relations, collocation.
1) 2)
Ullmann1 claims that absolute synonyms are those words which totally substitute each other in every context without any alteration in the notional and emotional meaning. Therefore, he makes the distinction between relative (partial) synonyms and absolute synonyms.
His relative synonyms are:
words which are interchangeable only in some contexts;
words which are interchangeable semantically, but not emotionally.
Absolute synonyms, although rare, are present under the following conditions:
1) when they are interchangeable in all contexts;
2) when their cognitive and affective value is preserved. Lyons2 has also treated absolute synonymy in
contrast with partial synonymy. He also introduces the synonymous "expressions" in addition to synonymous "words". I would regard this extension of the concept of synonymy over units larger than the word as very useful for our analysis of synonymy. The relation of synonymy can be established not only between single words, but also between phrases or even sentences.
1Ullmann St. (1967): Semantics. An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
2Lyons J. (1981): Language and Linguistics. Cambridge
University Press.
According to Lyons two (or more) synonymous expressions are absolute synonyms if they fulfill the three following conditions:
1) all their meanings are identical;
2) they are synonymous in all contexts;
3) they are semantically equivalent (i.e. their meaning or meanings are identical) in all the dimensions of meaning, both the descriptive and the non-descriptive one.
We could easily state that absolute synonyms which could meet the requirements put forward by Lyons are almost impossible to find. From a theoretical point of view, if these synonyms existed, they would be a "burden" to language as they would act against the principle of language economy and would perform no real function. Why would language need two "expressions" which perform exactly the same function?
Cruse3 pays special attention to the notion of absolute synonymy and the scale of synonymity. He states that "two lexical units would be absolute synonyms (i.e. have identical meanings" only if all their contextual relations were identical". It would be very difficult to prove that two units are absolute synonyms under this definition because this implies checking all their relations in all their imaginable contexts. Therefore, absolute synonymy
3 Cruse A. (1986): Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press. P. 268.
is based on the "relative normality". The same normality in all contexts is equal to identity in meaning.
Many users of English would sometimes regard begin and commence as absolute synonyms which could replace each other in all contexts. However, we can easily understand that the more formal word commence could not normally be used in an informal context, where begin could be normally used. Cruse provides the following example:
a) Johny, tell Mummy when Playschool begins and she'll watch it with you; (+)
b) Johny, tell Mummy when Playschool commences and she'll watch it with you. (-)
Such pairs of synonyms as father-daddy, mother-mum, die-pass away, murder-assassinate, thrifty-stingy, statesman-politician make us aware that synonyms, apart from their notional (descriptive) meaning, also convey numerous connotations. In addition to the object, person or phenomenon a word denotes, it may also convey various feelings or associations which are, or rather have become, an indivisible component of the word.
Thus, synonyms can differ in the following dimensions:
■ stylistic variation (informal - formal): take after -resemble (phrasal verbs are usually used in informal language);
■ expressive variation (feelings, attitudes): skinny - slim (the second member of the synonymic pair conveys more positive connotations than the first one);
■ denotational variation: stare - glimpse (they differ with respect to the speed of action).
Another element acting against absolute synonymy is the collocation of a word. One would usually use infant, child and baby in combination with different words although their denotation is the same. For example, here are some typical combinations of the words infant, child and baby: infant mortality rate, child abuse and baby tooth. However, collocational restrictions are not limited to idioms alone. Although deep and profound could be used synonymously when followed by the word thoughts, only deep can be used with water. Webster's dictionary1 provides a number of synonyms differing in lexical restrictions. For example, "one ascends (not mounts) a mountain; one mounts (not ascends) a horse". Here are a few more examples:
■ One excuses small faults, minor omissions, or neglects, especially in social or conventional obligations. One pardons2 serious faults, crimes, or grave offences, especially against laws or morals: "Excuse my glove" (Sheridan); to pardon a thief; to pardon a theft; "Apollo, pardon my great profaneness'gainstthine oracle" (Shakespeare).
■ Stop applies primarily to action, or to that which is thought of as moving; cease applies also to states and conditions, and to that which is thought of as being: a train stops, but does not cease; the noise it makes both stops and ceases; one's love may cease, but scarcely stop.
1Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms (1984): Merriam Webster.
2Pardon is mainly used by superiors or for mercy or generosity.
■ Fast and rapid are often used without distinction; but fast frequently applies to the moving object, whereas rapid is apt to characterize or suggest the movement itself: a fast horse, a fast train; a rapid current, a rapid gait, rapid progress. * Hateful and odious are sometimes used with little distinction. But hateful more frequently applies to that which excites actual hatred, odious to that which is excessively disagreeable, or which awakens repugnance: "Why shouldn't we hate what is hateful in people, and scorn what is mean?" .... "There was something more odious to him in her friendship than her hatred".
To reinforce the idea of collocation, Cruse3brings the example of kick the bucket and die:4 Arthur kicked the bucket. (?) The hamster kicked the bucket. (?) The aspidistra kicked the bucket. Unlike die, kick the bucket is used for human beings. This restriction is not a logical derivation of kick the bucket. The meaning of kick the bucket is not dying in a typical human manner, but just to die. The restriction for human beings is semantically arbitrary.
Cruse also provides the following table where a number of synonyms are tested in their collocational capacity.
Collocational restrictions*
shows that the combination is not possible; + shows that the combination is possible; ? shows that the combination is doubtful
On the other hand, syntactic restrictions include such examples as finish and complete; the former can be used without a direct object: Has she finished?, while the verb complete needs a direct object as we cannot create such sentences as Has she completed?
Similarly, Albanian synonyms can be differentiated by "the capacity to create new words and to be used with other words in collocations or phraseological units"5. Thomai provides the examples of koke (head) and krye (head). Despite being in a relation of synonymy, koke creates different words and is combined with words different from krye: kokederr, koketul, kokedrejtuese, koke me rendesi, but kryeqytet, kryeminister, kryeinspektor, nekryetejaves. It is evident that these two synonyms are not completely interchangeable.
Let us now take into consideration the synonymy relation between words and euphemisms; for example,
3 Cruse D. Alan (1986): Lexical Semantics. Cambridge
University Press. P. 280-281.
4Kick the bucket and die imply loss of life.
5Thomai J. (2005): Leksikologjia e gjuhesshqipe. Tirane, Dudaj.
P. 130.
Unblemishedspotlessflawlessimmaculateimpeccable
performance - - + + +
argument- - + - ?
complexion ? ? + - -
behaviour - - - - +
kitchen - + - + -
record + + - ? +
reputation ? + - ? ?
taste - - ? ? +
order - - ? + +
credential - - - - +
"5¡r
ujk (wolf) is synonymous with its euphemisms gojelidhuri, gojekyguri, gojemberthyeri. However, in spite of denoting the same referent and being considered synonymous, ujk cannot be replaced by its euphemisms in the following sentence:
Ujkuqimen e nderronporzakonin se harron. This is also true for certain toponyms: Ku behetndarja e kufijve? - pyeti Besiani, kurbujtinarisollivezet e skuqurate Dianes. -TeShteguiUjkut, zotni,- iupergjigjbujtinari.
- Gjysmeorelargqekendej. Po, neqofte se zotniadeshironteshkoje, me karroceeshtemepak (Ismail Kadare, "Prilliithyef').
Idiomatic restrictions are also observed in the synonym pair vij (come) and mberrij (arrive). They are interchangeable in the context below:
Perpara se temberrinin, u ndje era e kafesdhe era e kendshme e salepit.Kishtedigkatengjashme me mengjeset e shtepisesetyretemadhe (Ismail Kadare, "NepunesiiPallatitteEndrrave").
Nevertheless, in the phrase mevjenndermend, the word vjen cannot be replaced by mberrin.
The synonymy relation should therefore be viewed from the lexical and syntactic perspective of differentiation. Sharing a number of semantic traits does not necessarily mean that the synonyms can be used in the same lexical or grammatical environments. Special
attention must be paid to this kind of differentiation as it may directly affect the accuracy of synonym use. REFERENCES
1. Cruse D.A. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, 1986.
2. Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.Cambridge University Press, 1995.
3. Edmonds P., Hirst G. Near-Synonymy and Lexical Choice. University of Toronto, 2002.
4. Kreidler W. Ch. Introducing English Semantics. Routledge, 1998.
5. Lyons J. Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 1981.
6. Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms. Merriam Webster, 1984.
7. Murphy L. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy and Other Paradigms. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
8. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2000.
9. Palmer F. R. Semantics. Cambridge University Press, 1981.
10. Thomai J. Leksikologjia e gjuhesshqipe. Tirane, Dudaj, 2005.
11. Ullmann St. Semantics, an Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967.
