Article 18 in LCPJ Danglli, Leonard & Abazaj, Griselda 2009: Absolute versus Relative Synonymy Absolute versus Relative Synonymy Abstract This article aims at providing an illustrated discussion of the concept of absolute synonymy under the general framework of the linguistic phenomenon of synonymy in language. The notion of synonymy has been subject to numerous studies and debates over what it constitutes but a greater controversy has accompanied the concept of absolute synonymy. Various attitudes range from the total rejection of absolute synonymy in language to extremely rare occurrences. However, it has to be pointed out that the notion of absolute synonymy itself is seen from different angles, by taking into consideration the different components in relation to synonymy. Introduction In spite of being a universal phenomenon, studied from Aristotle in his Rhetoric to present-day scholars, synonymy still provides controversial issues which need further analysis. One of the main discussions over the concept of synonymy has been that of defining what this linguistic phenomenon constitutes or providing a single definition. However, the definition of synonyms has brought about the problem of absolute synonymy in a language. As a consequence, the question whether two words are absolutely identical in a language puts forward a number of interesting issues to be addressed. Is there absolute synonymy? The numerous and sometimes conflicting definitions provided by various scholars with regard to synonymy serve as a proof of the complex nature of this linguistic phenomenon. John Lyons (Lyons, 1977) emphasizes that expressions with the same meaning are synonymous. This statement can serve as a means of starting to discuss the division between some of the traditional and strict definitions of synonyms as words identical in their meaning and the more recent or broader ones which take into consideration all the components of synonyms, such as denotation, connotation, stylistic value, collocation, etc. Cruse s statement (Cruse, 1986) that natural languages abhor absolute synonyms just as nature abhors a vacuum makes our search for absolute synonyms even harder. Bloomfield (Bloom field, 1933) also claims that absolute (perfect) synonymy is hard LCPJ Publishing 64
to obtain in language. His hypothesis implies that each linguistic form has a definite connotation. Therefore, the tendency in a language for two absolute synonyms is either for one of them to obtain additional semantic functions or end its active usage in the language. Ullman (Ullman, 1967) 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. Relative synonyms: 1.words which are interchangeable only in some contexts 2. 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 Lyons has also treated absolute synonymy, in relation to 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. Lonngren goes on further with synonymy between units below the word level (ex. the ending en in oxen can be regarded as synonymous with the standard ending s in cows). 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 fulfill the conditions put forward by Lyons are almost impossible to find. Theoretically speaking, if these synonyms existed they would be a burden for language as they would go against the principle of language economy and would perform no real function in language. Why would language need two expressions which perform exactly the same function in language? Cruse (Cruse, 1986) 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 would be absolute synonyms in accordance with 65 LCPJ Publishing
this definition, because this means checking all their relations in all their imaginable contexts. Therefore, absolute synonymy is based on the relative normality. The same normality in all contexts is equal with identity in meaning. Many speakers of English would sometimes regard begin and commence as absolute synonyms which could replace each other in any context. However, the relative normality of Cruse provides the following distinction: 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 (-) We can easily understand that the more formal equivalent commence could not normally be used in the informal context provided in the sentence. Such pairs of synonyms as father-daddy, mother-mum, die-pass away, murderassassinate-execute, 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 the word denotes, it may also convey various feelings or associations which are or have become an indivisible part of the word. The ability of a word to convey evaluative connotations can be used by a speaker to show either positive or negative attitudes towards a certain object, person, or phenomenon, as in the case of terrorist and freedom-fighter. Lincke (Lincke, 1994) further supports this by stating that a language often has regional, social, and stylistic distinct words which have the same denotation. The idea that context is essential for synonyms is further supported by Creidler (Creidler, 1998) who states that words that have the same meaning in a given context are synonyms. Moreover, Murphy (Murphy, 2003) brings the Principle of Contrast that every two forms distinguish in meaning in order to show that language works to eliminate absolute synonyms. Apresjan (Apresjan, 1973) also states that synonyms are usually defined as words which designate the same thing but emphasize different aspects of it or as words which have the same meaning, but differ in its finer shades. Another element acting against absolute synonymy is the collocation of a word with other words or that synonyms are rarely equivalent in their abilities to occur with other words in set phrases (Murphy, 2003). One would usually use infant, child and baby in combination with different words although their denotation is the same, such as in the cases of infant mortality rate, child abuse and baby tooth. However, collocational restrictions are not limited only to idioms. Although deep and profound could be used synonymously when followed by the word thoughts, only deep can be used with water. Even such synonyms as big and large, which are sometimes regarded by many as able to replace each other in all contexts, provide collocational restrictions. For example, only the word big can be used in the following context: She got her big break in London, LCPJ Publishing 66
and now she s a big noise at the BBC and she s making big money. Moreover, Cruse provides a whole list of synonyms which undergo collocational restrictions as shown in the following chart: unblemished spotless flawless immaculate impeccable performance - - + + + argument - - + -? complexion?? + - - behaviour - - - - + kitchen - + - + - record + + -? + What we tried to show above is that absolute synonymy is either impossible or very rare. Let us now try to focus on those rare cases which can provide us with absolute synonyms. Taking into consideration Murphy s definition of what she calls full synonyms as those that are identical in every sense, we could immediately think of mono-semantic words as potential candidates for full (absolute) synonyms. This is in full compliance with the statement that synonyms are rare, as we already know that the words of a language are mostly polysemous. However, a potential group of words which could have a single meaning and could be void of any connotations would be that of technical or scientific words. Murphy has brought such examples as carbamide = urea, groundhog = woodchuck. Moreover, we could provide substantive as a synonym for noun. Surprisingly, we can endeavor to find arguments against absolute synonymy even in these rare cases of potential candidates for absolute synonymy. Although we noticed that groundhog and woodchuck can be regarded as absolute synonyms because they denote the same thing, they still differ in respect to their occurrence with other words in fixed phrases. Despite the fact that they mean the same thing woodchuck could not substitute groundhog in Groundhog Day (the 2 nd February celebrated in the USA). Conclusions Synonymy, as a complex linguistic phenomenon, although constantly studied in the course of time, it still puts forward problems which need to be resolved. An important issue to be addressed is that of agreeing on a proper definition which would encompass all the components of meaning. Moreover, the notion of absolute synonymy in a language is a very complex one and can be viewed from different angles. However, it is important to point out that absolute synonymy in the strictest sense of the term is either impossible or very rare as it goes against the principle of language economy and they would therefore be useless in language. 67 LCPJ Publishing
References Aronoff, M. 2002: The Handbook of Linguistics, Blackwell Publishing. Cruse, A. 1986: Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press. Harris, R. 1973: Synonymy and Linguistic Analysis, Basil Blackwell. Piozzi, H. 1804: British Synonymy, or an Attempt at regulating the choice of words in familiar conversation, Parson and Galignan, Paris. Lyons, J. 1995: Linguistic Semantics, Cambridge University Press. Murphy, L. 2003: Semantic Relations and the Lexicon, Cambridge University Press. Ullmann, S. 1967: Semantics, An Introduction to the Science of Meaning, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. The total number of words is 1679 LCPJ Publishing 2009 by Leonard Danglli & Griselda Abazaj Leonard Danglli, MA in Linguistics (PhD ongoing), is a full-time lecturer at the Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Tirana. His interests include Linguistics and Methodology. Griselda Abazaj, MA in American Literature, is a full-time lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Aleksandër Moisiu University, Durres. Her interests include Linguistics and American Literature. LCPJ Publishing 68