“Effective usage of synonyms on the novel of “Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck - Английский язык - Дипломные работы

Информация о документе

Цена	9000UZS
Размер	59.8KB
Покупки	0
Дата загрузки	26 Сентябрь 2019
Расширение	docx
Раздел	Дипломные работы
Предмет	Английский язык

“Effective usage of synonyms on the novel of “Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck

Купить

MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN KARSHI STATE UNIVERSITY The English and Literature department. “Effective usage of synonyms on the novel of “Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck Supervisor: M.Gaybullaeva KARSHI - 2016

Contents I. Introduction II. The Main Part 2.1 General definition of synonyms and their classification 2.2 The notion of changeability and how the meanings can be substituted in a language 2.3 Some semantic peculiarities of synonyms and their functional relationship 2.4 Peculiar distributional features of synonyms 2.5 Peculiar features of semantic combinability of synonyms 2.6 The link of synonymy with collocational meaning 2.7 The notion of conceptual synonymy III. Conclusion 1.3 Summary to the whole work 2.3 Ways of applying of the work IV. Bibliography

The theme of my qualification work sounds as following: “Effective usage of synonyms on the novel “Of Mice and Men”. This qualification work can be characterized by the following: The actuality of this work caused by several important points. We seem to say that the problem of synonyms is one of the main difficult ones for the English language learners. It can be most clearly seen in the colloquial layer of a language, which, in its turn at high degree is supported by development of modern informational technologies and simplification of alive speech. As a result, a great number of new meanings of one and the same word appear in our vocabulary. So the significance of our work can be proved by the following reasons: a) The problem of synonymy is one of the developing branches of vocabulary

If we say about the new information used within our work we may note that the work studies the problem from the modern positions and analyzes the modern trends appeared in this subject for the last ten years. In particular, the new computer-based meanings of some habitual words were given. The practical significance of the work can be concluded in the following items: a) The work could serve as a good source of learning English by young teachers at schools and colleges. b) The lexicologists could find a lot of interesting information for themselves. c) Those who would like to communicate with the English-speaking people through the Internet will be able to use the up-to-date words with the help of our qualification work. Having said about the linguists studied the material before we can me

The work is composed onto three major parts: introduction, main part and conclusion. Each part has its subdivision onto the specific thematically items. There are two points in the introductory part: the first item tells about the general content of the work while the other gives us the general explanation of the lexicological phenomenon of shortening in a language. The main part bears the seven points in itself. The first point explains the general definition of synonyms and their classification. In the second item of the main part we give the notion of changeability and how the meanings can be substituted in a language. The third item tells Some semantic peculiarities of synonyms and their functional relationship In the fourth item we tale into consideration the Peculiar distributional f

“a widespread impression that … Hollywood was synonymous with immorality” (Doris Kearns Goodwin) 1 Synonyms can be nouns , adverbs or adjectives , as long as both members of the pair are the same part of speech . More examples of English synonyms:  baby and infant (noun)  student and pupil (noun)  pretty and attractive (adjective)  sick and ill (adjective)  interesting and fascinating (adjective)  quickly and speedily (adverb) Note that the synonyms are defined with respect to certain senses of words; for instance, pupil as the “aperture in the iris of the eye” is not synonymous with student. Similarly, expired as “having lost validity” (as in grocery goods) it doesn’t necessarily mean death. Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning (in all contexts or

 war and peace (compare to synonyms: war and armed conflict )  tremendous and awful (compare to synonyms: tremendous and remarkable)

Main Part 2.1 General definition of synonyms and their classification Synonyms are words different in their outer aspects, but identical or similar in their inner aspects. In English there are a lot of synonyms, because there are many borrowings, e.g. hearty / native/ - cordial/ borrowing/. After a word is borrowed it undergoes desynonymization, because absolute synonyms are unnecessary for a language. However, there are some absolute synonyms in the language, which have exactly the same meaning and belong to the same style, e.g. to moan, to groan; homeland, motherland etc. In cases of desynonymization one of the absolute synonyms can specialize in its meaning and we get semantic synonyms, e.g. «city» /borrowed/, «town» /native/. The French borrowing «city» is specialized. In other cases n

In each group of synonyms there is a word with the most general meaning, which can substitute any word in the group, e.g. «piece» is the synonymic dominant in the group «slice», «lump», «morsel». The verb « to look at» is the synonymic dominant in the group «to stare», «to glance», «to peep». The adjective «red’ is the synonymic dominant in the group «purple», «scarlet», «crimson». When speaking about the sources of synonyms, besides desynonymization and abbreviation, we can also mention the formation of phrasal verbs, e.g. «to give up» - «to abandon», «to cut down» - «to diminish». Grouping of words is based upon similarities and contrasts and is usually called as synonymic row. Taking up similarity of meaning and contrasts of phonetic shape we observe that every language has in its vocab

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. A more precise linguistic definition should be based on a workable notion of tie semantic structure of the word and of the complex nature of every separate meaning in a polysemantic word. Each separate lexical meaning of a word has been described in Chapter VII as consisting of a denotational component identifying the notion or the object and reflecting the essential features of the notion named, shades of meaning reflecting its secondary features, additional connotations resulting from typical contexts in which the word is used, its emotional com

To have something tangible to work upon it is convenient to compare some synonyms within their group, so as to make obvious the reasons of the definition. 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

A further illustration will be supplied by a group of synonymous nouns: hope, expectation, and 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 idioma

In the 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 must prevail over the general notion. When we want 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. Some of these verbs may be used transitively, e. g. He has left me... Abandoned me! Quitted me! (BENNETT). 2 In this synonymic series therefore the dominant term is leave. Other dominants are, for instance, get, a verb that can stand for the verbs obtain, acquire, gain, win, earn; also ask, the most general t

Compare the following .groups synonymous to five different meanings of the adjective fresh, as revealed by characteristic contexts: To begin a fresh paragraph—fresh:: another :: different :: new. Fresh air — fresh:: pure :: invigorating. A freshman —fresh:: inexperienced :: green :: raw. To be fresh with smb —fresh:: impertinent :: rude. The semantic structures of two polysemantic words sometimes coincide in more than one meaning, but never completely. Synonyms may also differ in emotional coloring 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

If the difference in the meaning of synonyms concerns the notion or the emotion expressed, as was the case in the groups discussed above, the synonyms are classed as ideographic synonyms, and the opposition created in contrasting them may be called an ideographic opposition. The opposition is formulated with the help of a clear definitive statement of the semantic component present in all the members of the group. The analysis proceeds as a definition by comparison with the standard that is thus settled. “It is not enough to tell something about each word. The thing to tell is how each word is related to others in this particular group.” 3 The establishment of differential features proves very helpful, whereas sliding from one synonym to another with no definite point of departure creates

 The general effect of poetic or learned .synonyms when used in prose or in everyday speech is that of creating alit elevated tone. The point may be proved by the very first example in this chapter (see p. 223) 4 where the poetic and archaic verb slays is-substituted for the neutral kill. We must be on our guard too against the idea that the stylistic effect may exist without influencing the meaning: in fact it never does. The verb slay not only lends to the whole a poetical and solemn ring, it also shows the writer’s and his hero’s attitude to the fact, their horror and repugnance of war and their feeling for its victims. The phrases they are killed, they are slain, they are made away with may refer to the same event hut they are different ill meaning, in so far as they reveal a differen

Since the exact meaning of each synonym is delimited by its interrelatedness with the other elements of the same group, comparison plays an important part in synonymic research. It has already been tentatively examined in the opening paragraph of this chapter; now we offer a slightly different angle of the same problem. The interchangeability and possible neutralization are tested by means of substitution, a procedure also profitably borrowed by semasiology from phonology. 1 The values of words 2 can best be defined by substituting them for one another and observing the resulting changes. When the landlady in John Waif’s “Hurry on down” says to the main personage: And where do you work? I’ve asked you that two or three times, Mr. Lumley, but you’ve never given me any answer, the verb ask h

To this connection some more examples may be cited. The words strange, odd, queer, though different in connotations, are often interchangeable because they can be applied to define the same words or words naming similar notions: strange feeling (glance, business)’, queer feeling (glance, business), odd feeling (glance, business). E. g.: It seems the queerest set-up I ever heard of. (WYNDHAM) 5 Compare also: she agreed to stay :: she consented to stay; she seems annoyed :: she appears annoyed :: she looks annoyed; to discharge an employee :: to sack an employee :: to fire an employee (a servant, etc.). It should be borne in mind that substitution in different contexts has for its object not only probing interchangeability but bringing into relief the difference in intellectual, emotional an

The area where substitution is possible is very limited and outside it all replacement either destroys the beauty and precision, or, more often, makes the utterance vague, ungrammatical and even unintelligible. This makes the knowledge of where each synonym differs from another of paramount importance for correctness of speech. The distinctions between words similar in meaning are often very fine and elusive, so that some special instruction on the use of synonyms is necessary even for native speakers. This accounts for the great number of books of synonyms that serve as guides for those who aim at good style and precision and wish to choose the most appropriate terms from the varied stock of the English vocabulary. The study of synonyms is especially indispensable for those who learn Engl

Contextual synonyms are similar in meaning only under some specific distributional conditions. The verbs bear, suffer and stand are semantically different and not interchangeable except when used in the negative form; can’t stand is equal to can’t bear in the following words of an officer: Gas. I’ve swallowed too much of the beastly stuff: I can’t stand it any longer. I’m going to the dressing-station. (ALDINGTON) There are some other distinctions to be made with respect to different kinds of semantic similarity. Some authors, for instance, class groups like ask :: beg :: implore or like :: love :: adore, gift :: talent :: genius as synonymous, calling them relative synonyms. This attitude is open to discussion. In fact the difference in denotative meaning is unmistakable: the words name d

Total synonymy, i.e. synonymy where the members of a synonymic group can replace each other in any given context, without the slightest alteration in denotative or emotional meaning and connotations, is an extremely rare occurrence. Examples of this type can be found in special literature among technical terms peculiar to this or that branch of knowledge. Thus, in linguistics the terms noun and substantive, functional affix, flections and inflection are identical in meaning. What is not generally realized, however, is that terms are a peculiar type of words, totally devoid of connotations or emotional coloring, and that their stylistic characterization does not vary? That is why this is a very special kind of synonymy: neither ideographic nor stylistic oppositions are possible here. As to

The distinction between synchronistic and dichromatic treatment is so fundamental that it cannot be overemphasized, but the two aspects are interdependent and cannot be understood without one another. It is therefore essential after the descriptive analysis synonymy in present-day English to take up the historical line of approach and discuss the origin of synonyms and the causes of either abundance in English. The majority of those who studied synonymy in the past have been cultivating both lines of approach without keeping them scrupulously apart, and focused their attention on the prominent part of foreign loan words in English synonymy, e. g. freedom :: liberty or heaven :: sky, where the first elements arc native and the second, French and Scandinavian respectively. O. Jazzperson and

The pattern of stylistic relationship represented in the above table, although typical, is by no means universal. For example, the native words dale, deed, fair are the poetic equivalents of their much more frequent borrowed synonyms valley, act or the hybrid beautiful. This subject of stylistic differentiation has been one of much controversy in recent years. It is universally accepted, however, that semantic and stylistic properties may change and synonyms which at one time formed a stylistic opposition only, may in the course of time become ideographically contrasted as well, and vice versa. It would be linguistically naive to maintain that borrowing re-silts only in quantitative changes or those qualitative changes are purely stylistically. The introduction of a borrowed word almost in

The fate of the word folder is not at all infrequent. Many other words now marked in the dictionaries as “archaic” or “obsolete” have dropped out in the same competition of synonyms: others survived with a meaning more or less removed from the original one. The process is called synonymic differentiation and is so current that M. Boreal regarded it as an inherent law of language development. It must be noted that -synonyms may influence each other semantically in two diametrically opposite ways: one of them is dissimilation, the other the reverse process, i. e. assimi1ation. The assimilation of synonyms consists in parallel development. An example of this is furnished by the sense development of Middle English adverbs meaning ‘swiftly’, and subsequently ‘immediately’. This law was discover

Of special importance for those who are interested in the present-day trends and characteristic peculiarities of the English vocabulary are the synonymic oppositions due to shift of meaning, new combinations of verbs with postpositive and compound nouns formed from them, shortenings, set expressions and conversion. Set expressions consisting of a verb with a postpositive are widely used in present-day English and may be called one of its characteristic features. l Many verbal synonymic groups contain such combinations as one of their elements. A few examples will illustrate this statement: to choose :: to pick out; to abandon :: to give up; to continue :: to go on; to enter :: to come in; to lift :: to pick up; to postpone :: to put off; to quarrel :: to fall out; to return :: to bring bac

N. N. Amosova stresses the patterned character of the phrases in question, the regularity of connection between the structure of the phrase and the resulting semantic effect. She also points out that there may be cases when phrases of this pattern have undergone a shift of meaning and turned into phraseological units quite different in meaning from, and not synonymical with, the verbs of the same root. This is the case with to give a lift, to give somebody quite a turn, etc. Quite frequently synonyms, mostly stylistically, hut sometimes ideographic as well, are due to shortening, e. g. memorandum :: memo; vegetables :: vegs; margarine :: merge; microphone :: mike; popular (song] :: pop (song). One should not overlook the fact that conversion may also be a source of synonymy; it accounts fo

The majority of scholars share the opinion that synonymy presents by itself the “microcircuit” of the language, which is characterized by their own relations and that it falls into quality of the component part in lexical system of the language as a whole. As it concerns the determinations of synonymy, there is no existence of the unity among the scholars’ opinions: one researchers come from the generality of the meaning of synonyms, while the others - from the correlation of semantic and subject - logical begin in a word, while the thirds try to prove that synonyms are defined on the base of generality of the structured model of the use and alike combinability of the words. Such kind of analysis of these determinations happens to in the works of Russian philologists V.A. Pautynskaya, “Rev

Amongst the judgments about correlation of meanings in synonymy and their interchangeable character, there are such, which reduce the synonymy to unlimited interchange. For instance, A. Cherch writes that if two names (the question is about the names presented as combinations of the words) are synonyms (that is they have one and the same content), it is always possible for a linguist to change one of them into another. However, example, which A. Cherch gives on this cause, shows that the interchangeable character of synonyms is limited. This example looks as follows: e.g. Sir Valiter Scott is the author of “Veverley” In this example we can see that though Sir Walter Scott is not a Veverley by its semantic content but Sir Walter Scott is Sir Walter Scott, though when we say a word “Veverley

Semantic fields are the answer to the problem / question of structuring the lexicon of a language. Those who defend the existence of semantic fields believe that the language is structured. They say that the words can be classified in sets, which are related to conceptual fields and these words divide the semantic space / domain in different ways. It’s to be preferred that the label to use here is field rather than theory because theories are supposed to be complete and have explicit definitions of the matter in question, and this isn’t what happens in the semantic field approach. We just have ideas of how things seem to be. Moreover, the semantic field approach isn’t formalized and it was born on the basis of just a handful of ideas of how words work. The basic notion behind any semantic

The idea behind semantic fields is the arrangement of words in sets depending on the organizing concepts. Many semantic linguists say that it’s difficult to think of a word outside a semantic field because if you say that a word is outside a semantic field, you say it’s outside the lexicon. The problem with this is what happens with words which don’t evoke a concept. Many words in English are meaningful but don’t have a concept Ex: Even / only These words clearly make a semantic contribution to the sentence. It’s not the same to say: Only John drinks milk. T han: Even John drinks milk. 2.3 Some semantic peculiarities of synonyms and their functional relationship This chapter is denoted to the analysis of semantic and functional relationships and words and their synonymy in modern English.

V.G. Viluman defines the semantic structure of the word as a set of semantic signs, which are revealed at the determination of semantic adjacency of the synonymical words. According to his opinion, one of the possible ways of the determination of semantic adequacy of the words is offered by the analysis of the description of meanings for these words in explanatory dictionaries. Two words are considered as semantically correspondent to each other if their vocabulary meaning is explained one through another. The relationship between two words can also be direct and mediated. For example, having studied the semantic relationship between verbs which are united by the semantic meaning of “to look”, V.G. Vilyuman builds the matrix of the semantic structures of the synonymical verbs analyzed. The

The comparative studies also serve as the base for typological investigations, the production of typological universals, since, as a result of such correspondences, are identically and non-identically fixed with the determined standpoint elements. For example, the Russian linguist M.M. Makovskiy in his article “Typology of Lexical-Semantic Systems” emphasizes that the typological analysis of lexicon must not only be reduced to the external, mostly available establishments , which are often available for observation, but often casual in coincidences in their lexical and semantically meanings. In the course of studies we must necessary realize, if there general structured lexical-semantic models, common for many languages (Russian and Uzbek are included) exist, and if yes, what kind of pecul

2.4 Peculiar distributional features of synonyms Synonymic pairs like wear and tear are very numerous in modern English and often used both in everyday speech and in literature. They show all the typical features of idiomatic phrases that ensure their memorable ness such as rhythm, alliteration, rhyme and the use of archaic words seldom occurring elsewhere. The examples are numerous: hale and hearty, with might and main, nevertheless and notwithstanding, modes and manners, stress and strain, rack and ruin, really and truly, hue and cry, wane and pale, without let or hindrance, act and deed. There are many others which show neither rhyme nor alliteration, and consist of two words equally modern. They are pleonastic, i. e. they emphasize the idea by just stating it twice, and possess a certa

In a great number of cases the semantic difference between two OP more synonyms is supported by the difference in valence. Distributional oppositions between synonyms have never been studied systematically, although the amount of data collected is very impressive. The difference in distribution maybe syntactical, morphological, lexical, and surely deserves more attention than has been so far given to it. It is, for instance, known that bare in reference to persons is used only predicatively while naked occurs both predicatively and attributively. The same is true about alone, which, irrespectively of referent, is used only predicatively, whereas its synonyms solitary and lonely occur in both functions. The function is predicative in the following sentence: you are idle, be not solitary, if

Lexical difference in distribution is based on the difference in valence. An example of this is offered by the verbs win and gain. Both may 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. We are here trespassing on the domain of set expressions, a problem that has already been treated in an earlier chapter. Here it will suffice to point out that the phraseological combining possibilities of words are extremely varied. It has been repeatedly stated that synonyms cannot be substituted into set expressions; as a general rule each synonym has its own peculiarities of phraseological connections. The statement is only approximately correct. A. V. Koenig has shown that set expressions have special propert

The lexical restriction reveals in the following fact: a synonym can be used only with determined circle of words. However, the verbal synonyms practically do not possess such type of restrictions, though there are some examples which might be suitable, to some degree, to the given type of restrictions: For example, if we analyze the two synonyms - «to creep” and “to crawl”, the latter, is more preferable in usage with the names of animals who are deprived with limbs (e.g. Snakes, gophers, etc.) Cf: The snakes crawled around the tree. Contrary to the above mentioned character, the semantic restriction is assigned by denotation of determined semantic feature, which a synonym must possess when correlating in syntactical relationship with the given word. For instance, in the synonymic row «to

To reach / to achieve, to gain, to attain /one’s aim ( e,g. the abject of one’s desires, success, fame, glory), “to reach (an understanding, agreement), “to achieve the reputation for being rude”, “to achieve the realization of a dream”, “to gain / to attain / the attention of the clerk [ the confidence of the mountain people]. It should be borne in the mind that the last examples the verbs “to gain” and “to attain” mustn’t be substituted onto the verbs “”to reach”, or “to achieve”, because the noun expression “to reach / to achieve / the attention of the clerk [the confidence of the mountain people] are wrong (and not only somewhat different in the meaning). Supervising more attentively to the nouns “attention” and “confidence”, which are capable to enter in the place of the direct object

The similar difference is presented in the pair of the synonyms “to condescend” - “ to deign” ( in the meaning of “ сниOодить ”): the first of them is combined both with the name of the action or property, the subject of which coincides with the subject for the verb “ to condescend” (e.g. he condescend smile); and with the name or state the subject of which does not coincide with the subject for the verb “to condescend” (cf.: to condescend to smb’s folly). Meantime, the verb “to deign” can be combined in its meaning only with the names of the proper actions or the characteristics of the subject: Cf.: He didn’t deign to smile, he didn’t deign to their folly. The differences in combinability between the synonyms can, like constructive differences, be motivated or non-motivated. Let us take i

The verbs “to ponder”, “to meditate» and “to ruminate” in the meaning of “ размышлять ” are combinable with the names of situation, characteristic, products of thoughts as object (the theme) of reflections: cf.: to ponder / to meditate/ upon the course of actions; to ruminate over the past; to ponder / to meditate, to ruminate/ the point. The verbs “to ponder” and “to meditate” are combinable with the names of the person as object for reflections; the latter is characterized for the verb “to ruminate”: cf.: to ponder on modern young men, he meditated on all those people and the things they represented in his life. The verbs “to depress”, “to oppress” and “to weigh down (upon)” in the meaning of “ угнетать ” can be combined with the names of feelings, actions, characteristics, etc. as the r

We analyze this chapter from the viewpoint of the Russian philologist E.V.Drozd. According to this work E.V. Drozd has denoted the study of the semantics and the peculiarities of the combinability of the English verbs “to amuse”, “to entertain”, “to grip”, “to interest”, “to thrill” The given group of verbs was chosen not accidentally. The verbs “to amuse”,” to entertain”, “to grip”, “to interest”, “to thrill” reflects the important social and psychological notions, connected with intellectual - cognitive and emotional sphere of human activity and this group differs in a rather big frequency of its usage. The interest to this group is also undutiful from the purely a linguistically standpoint because of its extent semantic structure, and the various possibilities for combinability. Proceed

The Analysis shows that the general component for all the investigating verbs is a seam “to affect the emotions”, which gives us, as we seem, the right to refer the considered verbs to the category of the emotional ones. It is Interesting to note that no even one of the dictionaries, describing the meaning of the verbs “to amuse” and “to entertain”, gives the word “emotion” as such, but the presence of the component “joy”, “happiness”, “revelry” (purely emotional features) allows us to fix the presence of the component “to affect the emotions” in these verbs as well. The general component for four from five considered verbs a was the following: “ to engage” and “keep the attention”. According to the investigations, this element in miscellaneous degrees is expressed in the meanings of the a

When you say they A and B are synonymous because they express the same object, you expect also that if A is synonymous of B, B is also synonymous of A. but this isn’t reflected in dictionaries. If A is a synonym of B and B is a synonym of A, these are true or absolute synonyms. They are interchangeable. But there are no absolute synonyms, it’s an intellectual creation. Native speakers feel that some pairs of synonyms are more synonymous than others. This gives us the idea of a scale of synonymy. Obviously, the idea behind synonymy is that of sharing meaning that is that two words share (part of) their meaning. It has become a problem to establish how much overlapping do we need for two words for being considered synonyms. Ex: truthful: honest they are synonyms although they share only part

Cashiered ’ and ‘ dismissed ’ are synonyms, while ‘ murdered ’ and executed ’ are contrastive synonyms Arthur’s got himself a dog -or more exactly, a cat. The inherent relationship between ‘ cat ’ and ‘ dog ’ is that of contrast, for that reason this sentence is odd. It is impossible to put an end in the scale of synonyms. Ex: + rap: tap rap: knock rap: thwack - rap: bang They are not prototypical synonyms. They are peripheral synonyms Behind any study of synonymy is the idea of the quest for the establishment of true synonyms. Cruse reviews some apparently true synonyms. Ex: begin: commence munch: chew hate: loathe Cruse takes into account the question of the contextual relations. For two words to be true synonymous we need two conditions: equivalence of meaning and equivalence of context

Johnny, where have you concealed Daddy’s slippers? (-) Sense: you have to choose the correct sense of the word if you want to prove that two words are synonymous. Ex: Arthur’s more recent car is an old one (+) Arthur’s most recent car is a former one (-) He had more responsibility in his old job He had more responsibility in his former job 2.6 The link of synonymy with collocational meaning They have been considered similar in meaning but never fully synonyms. They belong to the same categorical concept Collocations by Leech: girl, boy, woman, flower, pretty garden, color, village, etc. Boy, man, car, vessel, handsome overcoat, airliner, typewriter, etc. Collocations found in the Lob and the British Corpora: Pretty, Batman, Case, Co-ed, Dress, Headdresses, Girl, Piece of seamanship, Quilt,

Mary is a handsome woman A handsome woman is more elegant that a pretty woman. She also has stronger facial features. A handsome woman isn’t a pretty woman at the same time and vice versa. So they are exclusive terms. Pretty Street’ but ‘handsome avenue’ If they are exclusive terms, they are nor synonyms but co-hyponyms If two items are closely synonymous, a coordination test will lead to a tautology. Ex: Scientists have so far failed to find for this deadly and fatal disease. However if we coordinate ‘ pretty ’ and ‘ handsome ’ what we have is a contradiction: That woman is pretty and handsome (Photocopy of definitions of ‘ deep ’, ‘ profound ’, ‘ handsome ’, ‘ lovely ’ and ‘ beautiful ’) Some of the dictionaries specialize it more deeply than others. Profound ’ in the Longman is defined

This shows how language establishes degrees of intensity.

2.7 The notion of conceptual synonymy Words are felt to be synonymous independently of their contextual relations. Leech makes the distinction between synonymy and conceptual synonymy. The equivalence of meaning of synonymy has to adhere to the equivalence of concepts, independently from the stylistic overtones. Ex: Steed (poetic) Horse (general) Nag (slang) Gee-gee (baby language) 10 The concept ‘ horse ’ is evoked by these words. So these words are synonymous although they are different in their stylistic overtones. This has been strongly criticized because to prove that we all have the same concept is very doubted. Our system of conceptualization may be different from one speaker to other. The most evident example of this is baby language. When a baby says gee- gee he may be saying it t

Barbara Warren makes a distinction between synonyms and variants. She says that we have synonyms if the words have similar meaning and if they are interchangeable without affecting meaning in some context or contexts. Variants are words which have similar meaning but without the interchangeability in some contexts. Ex: extending Deep far below; profound the surface. ‘Deep’ and ‘ profound’ has always been considered synonyms and it’s true they are interchangeable but it’s also true that in some contexts one cannot replace the other. He had a deep / profound understanding of the matter This river is deep / profound. They are not interchangeable in this context. Ex: Sweet: candy dialectal variants Decease: pop off stylistic variants Lady: woman connotative variants In one context you use one

The conclusions: ‘ Deep ’ and ‘ profound ’ show a difference in collocability, that is, they tend to collocate with different words. Deep tends to collocate with words of affection, conviction, feeling, regret, satisfaction, sorrow… Whereas ‘ profound ’ tends to collocate with words of difference, distaste, effect, failure, influence… They enter different collocations because they mean slightly different things. They specialize in certain areas of meaning and that makes them slightly different. He also talks about metaphorical status . Metaphorically speaking, they can mean position on the one hand or quality of depth on the other. Only ‘ deep ’ enters for the position metaphor, but the quality of depth can be expressed by both of them. Ex: deep structure (profound structure) He was deep (

Of course in terms of truth-conditions one entails the other one but not vice versa, that is ‘ profound ’ includes ‘ deep ’ but not vice versa. Ex: His profound insight into human nature has stood the test of centuries His deep insight into human nature has stood the test of centuries. His deep insight into human nature has stood the test of centuries. * His profound insight into human nature has stood the test of centuries Synonymy is understood within mutual entailment (A-B) but ‘ deep ’ and ‘ profound ’ doesn’t correspond to this. Native speakers feel that ‘ profound ’ is stylistically more elevated or more formal that deep? So with all this evidence it is impossible to say that they are synonymous. This is why Person gives the following figure as the analysis for them. Concrete ‘situat

Ex: readable: legible At to what extent can we say that they are synonyms? • readable: (of handwriting or point) able to be read easily’ pleasurable or interesting to read’ • legible: (of handwriting or print) ‘able to be read easily’ They are only synonymous when they mean ‘able to be read easily’ “The child, quite obviously, would not be expected to produce a composition, but would be expected to know the alphabet, where the full stops and commas are used, and be able to write in a readable / legible manner, something like, ‘The cat sat on the mat’.” “It is not easy to see why her memory should have faded, especially as she wrote a most readable / *legible autobiography which went quickly through several editions.” Legible; readable; able to with pleasure; be read’ and /or; interest. The

However something peculiar has happened with this words. The popular word ‘ quicksilver ’ is starting to disappear and what usually happens is that the formal words are the one that disappears. But in this case, it is the contrary. Cigarette: fag Cigarette fag Tube with General tobacco in slang’ It for smoking’ ‘narrow, made of finely cut tobacco rolled in thin paper’ This figure contains not only CC but typical attributes too. CONCLUSION 3.1 SUMMARY TO THE WHOLE WORK So, the conclusion is that some words of a language don’t lend themselves well to the analysis in terms of semantic fields. Other important idea is the difficulty of finding finite sets of words. In any case, there’s an internal contradiction between the ideas of a set with the structuring of words of a language. A set is a c

a) The problem of synonymy in Modern English is very actual nowadays. b) There are several kinds of analysis of synonyms: semantical, stylistic and componentional. c) A number of famous linguists dealt with the problem of synonymy in Modern English. In particular, Profs. Ullmann and Broal emphasized the social reasons for synonymy, L. Lipka pointed out non-binary contrast or many-member lexical sets and gave the type which he called directional opposition, V.N. Comissarov and Walter Skeat proved the link of synonymy with other kinds of lexical devices. d) The problem of synonymy is still waits for its detail investigation. Having said about the perspectives of the work we hope that this work will find its worthy way of applying at schools, lyceums and colleges of high education by both tea

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Ginzburg R.S. et al. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979 pp.72-82 2.Buranov A. Muminov J. Readings on Modern English Lexicology T. O’qituvchi 1985 pp. 34-47 3. Arnold I.V. The English Word M. High School 1986 pp. 143-149 4. O. Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395-412 5. Jespersen ,Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford, 1982 pp.246-249 5. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford 1964., pp.147, 167, 171-172 6.V.D. Arakin English Russian Dictionary M., Russky Yazyk 1978 pp. 23-24, 117- 119, 133-134 7.Abayev V.I. Synonyms and their Semantical Features T. O’qituvchi 1981 pp. 4- 5, 8, 26-29 8.Smirnitsky A.I. Synonyms in English M.1977 pp.57-59,89-90 9. Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow

19. Maurer D.W. , High F.C. New Words - Where do they come from and where do they go. American Speech ., 1982. p .171 20. Aпресян Ю.Д.Лексическая семантика. Синонимические средства языка. М.1974. стр.46 21. Беляева Т.М., Потапова И.А. Английский язык за пределами Англии. Л. Изд-во ЛГУ 1971Стр. 150-151 22. Арнольд И.В. Лексикология современного английского языка.М. Высшая школа 1959. стр.212-224 23. . Виноградов В. В. Лексикология и лексикография. Избранные труды . М . 1977 стр 119-122 24. Bloomsbury Dictionary of New Words. M. 1996 стр .276-278 25. Hornby The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Lnd. 1974 стр .92-93, 111 26 . Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981pp.23-25 27. Трофимова З .C. Dictionary of New Words and New Meanings. Изд . ‘ Павлин ’ ,1993. стр

Купить