8.2 Principle of no synonymy

If we blur the line between meaning and use, a consequence is that true synonyms would have to occur in the same lexical, grammatical and discursive contexts. Corpus linguists have been quite successful, however, to show that this is not the case. Most synonyms aren’t interchangeable at all.

  1. We made big plans for 2020.
  2. ? We made large plans for 2020.

Some synonyms would create unidiotmatic utterances, i.e. utterances that sound very unusual to a native speaker.

  1. Let’s have a drink tonight.
  2. ? Let’s have a beverage tonight.

Even synonyms that seem to have contexts in which they are interchangeable show meaningful patterns. You can predict when people use start vs. begin probabilistically, based on grammatical and lexical properties (Schmid 1996; Divjak & Gries 2009). E.g. it is much more likely to find begin to do than begin doing, even though you can find both (Schmid 1996).

Among other things, the observation that there are subtle, but non-random systematic differences between even the closest of synonyms have led some usage-based linguists to that there are actually no true synonyms at all, but only partial ones.

Goldberg’s (1995) principle of no synonymy:

  • If there is a difference in form, there must be a difference in function.
  • There are no true synonyms.
  • Synonyms are used in different grammatical, lexical, discursive contexts.
  • Synonyms may be loaded with dialectal, socio-cultural associations, which are not inherently different from other grammatical and lexical properties

Why are the following utterances unusual?

  1. Daddy! The chocolate is so nice! We must purchase more! (anecdotal)
  2. The perpetrator left in order to micturate. (Elementary, TV series)

purchase is found mostly in contexts of trade, acquiring larger amounts of goods, legal language, or in general higher registers and when the process of buying itself is in focus. A child using it in a colloquial context for something like chocolate is, therefore, unexpected and sounds unusual or marked. The other example is uttered by Sherlock Holmes, who is very aware of his intellectual superiority and who might want to distinguish himself from other people by using precise and scientific language. Using synonyms provide a way for social distancing in a conversation. The opposite is also possible and can be frequently observed in something that is called the chameleon effect. People who speak a dialect might change their language substantially when they are around people that speak a different dialect or adhere to a standard. Often, the dialect speaker will switch to the standard at work but speak dialect at home with their parents or friends. Word choice is a salient example for the chameleon effect in action, but the same mechanisms are true on all levels of language, from phonology, over grammar to discourse.

8.2.1 Dative alternation

An example for a pair of construction that is very often thought of as synonymous is the so-called dative alternation.

  1. Double object: I gave you the tickets.
  2. To-Dative: I gave the tickets to you.

There are categorical contexts in which the constructions are not interchangeable. E.g. you cannot use a pronoun in the as second object in a double object construction with a heavy first object (42), i.e. a long or complex first object.

  1. I gave it to you.
  2. ? I gave you it.
  3. I gave it to my best friend in the world.
  4. * I gave my best friend in the world it.

What’s left is non-categorical contexts where we do find a substantial amount of variation.

  1. I gave my mother a very nice present.
  2. I gave a very nice present to my mother.

References

Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th Gries. 2009. Corpus-based cognitive semantics: A contrastive study of phasal verbs in english and russian. Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics 273–296.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. 1st edition. University Of Chicago Press.

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 1996. Introspection and computer corpora: The meaning and complementation of start and begin. In, Lexicographica, symposium on lexicography vii.