Skip to main content

Levels of Linguistic Analysis II: Lexical Semantics

6 Synonymy

It’s passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies! It’s rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-parrot!”

— Monty Python 7

6.1 The same meaning and function

Synonyms are commonly understood as existing on word level, or lexeme level. As illustrated in the quote above, it is possible to have phrases being synonymous with words, phrases with phrases, etc. In fact, any lexical entry qualifies, i.e. we could also meaningfully describe synonymous affixes, function words or even entire constructions or syntactic patterns. The essential property of a set of synonyms is that they have the same meaning. In modern usage-based theories, such as Cognitive Linguistics and Construction Grammar, the lines between meaning and function get blurred. One main idea is that the way we use words and the contexts they are found in defines their meaning.

Those frameworks do not assume an objective reality and meanings based on truth conditions and referents that exist outside language. Instead, meanings are understood in terms of construal, that is the way reality is perceived subjectively. The idea is that we don’t call a book a book because there is a group of objects that exists independently from language, but because there are objects in our experience that we perceive of as book. This might not sound like a very useful description, but it elegantly captures meanings which are difficult to anchor in the “real world”. Just think of unicorns, orcs or ghosts. We can communicate information about those creatures even though we lack hard evidence for their existence. We might even disagree whether there is an actual referent in the real world, as is the case for ghosts. What’s more, our communication about them isn’t any different from that of “real” objects. unicorn is a noun like horse with the same set of affixes, obeying the same syntactic rules. If we base meaning in human experience rather than objective truths about reality, we can explain lexemes describing fantastic creatures without having to assume multiple realities, which would have been the traditional approach.

If meaning is bound to experience, and we use language to construe those experiences, meanings become defined by the context of use. In some sense, the way we use a word defines its meaning. In order to explain synonyms, we have to assume that they have the same meaning, i.e. the same, or almost the same, use.

6.2 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.

6.2.1 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 (51), 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.

6.3 Homework

With courtesy of our last presentation group, here is a gap filler. Use what you’ve learnt so far about frequency, corpora and CQP to fill in the gaps in a corpus-based approach rather than just using your intuition.

Bounty: Anyone who manages to augment their argument with an association measure and uploads it here before class, can skip one of their next assignments.

  1. I ______ forgot to call you.
  2. I have ______ shown you that the other day.
  3. This kid was ______ brave.
  4. It is _____ dangerous taking this way.
  5. Snow fell _____ outside.
  6. The Uni ____ recommends to wear a mask.
  7. It _____ ticked Alex off.
  8. The dinner was _____ tasty.

I’ll provide a walkthrough next week.

6.3.1 Tip of the Day

Like many other fields, English Linguistics has some standard literature that people cite a lot. A good starting point for any linguistic phenomenon are the big standard grammars. Huddleston & Pullum (2002) and Quirk (2010) are books that contain a lot of detailed descriptive information about anything English. They are also full of references for further reading. Some theoretical works that have been important in cognitive linguistics are Langacker (1999) and Goldberg (1995). If you are interested in metaphor, there is no way around Lakoff (1990) and Lakoff & Johnson (2008).

This is, of course, just a very limited selection. Make sure to consult any or all of those resources at least at some point during your own research for your term papers. Also don’t underestimate text books for students as a resource. It is not advised to cice from them, but they are also full of references, especially if you are exploring a topic and need descriptive information.