lataiwish

Lectures
Dr. Muftah Lataiwish
Lataiwish@garyounis.edu

Synonymy
It means sameness of meaning. Dictionary entries provide sets of words that have the same meaning they are synonymous. E.g. gala = festivity
Dictionaries seldom rely solely on synonymys , but add descriptive details to enlighten the reader.

English is rich in synonyms its vocabulary has come from two different sources
Anglo-Saxon and from other languages such as French, Latin, Greek. The former is native and the later is foreign . Despite the origin most words are an essential and wholly natural part of the English language.

However, pairs of native and foreign words like brotherly and fraternal buy and purchase world and universe and many others. The native are usually shorter and from Anglo Saxon. There are examples of triples . the word kingly, royal, regal French origin royal today is more common. In short, there are no real synonyms i.e. no two words have exactly the same meaning. It is unlikely that two words which have the same meaning would both survive . There are five ways in which they can be seen to differ.
1- Some sets of synonyms belong to different dialects of the language.. fall and autumn.
Words that belong to farming like cowshed, cowhouse or byre, haystack, hayrick or haymow. Words like tap is either faucet or spigot. Their status is no different form translation equivalents, It is simply of a matter of use by different people in different locations.
2- Words are used in different styles or registers. This is more problematic. A nasty smell , orrible stink. Gentlemen, man, chap pass away, die, pop off. It seems difficult to deal with style than to geographical locations regarding dialect . p. 61
3- Words may differ only in their emotive or evaluative meanings, but in relation to their cognitive meaning remains the same. E.g. statesman/politician, hide/conceal , thrifty, economical, stingy and fascist and liberal. These words are used differently in different situations to persuade or influence the audience and also for propaganda and so on. We can not separate emotive or evaluative meaning from basic cognitive meaning:
a- it is difficult to establish exactly what cognitive meaning. And not to attempt to define meaning in terms of physical properties. (verbs/ adjectives) carry no cognitive meaning.
b- The two opposites good and bad are used for evaluative purposes. We can not assume that they have no cognitive meaning, but of less interest to linguists.
c- We all make judgments in terms of good and bad. The choice is not actually objective but subjective one.
4- Some words are collocationally restricted. This is not related to meaning, but of the company they keep. Bacon or butter with rancid eggs and brains with addled. They occur in conjunction with other words. This can be seen as true synonyms because they occur in different environments.

5- Many words are close in meaning, there is a loose sense of synonyms. This refers to dictionary maker use . for examples see p. 62 .

Substitution may suggest a way of testing synonymy. This technique would give little measure of synonymy or of similarity of meaning. Examples can be found on p. 63, deep and profound with sympathy deep with water broad and wide with road but only broad with accent. All these indicate collocational possibilities, but never closely related to neatness in meaning. Another possibility is to explore the opposites. Deep and shallow can be treated as antonyms but not profound. Superficial could be contrasted with both deep and profound. However, words are interchangeable in certain environments.
Finally, connotation and context dependent are two items to be looked at . (Palmer : 1976 p. 64/65)

Two words are synonyms if they share at least one sense.
_ Substitutability might fail because:
_ No senses are shared
_ The sense required in a particular example is not shared
_ Particular shades of meaning are not shared: price/fare
_ Collocational constraints are violated: big/large mistake

Synonymy – “meaning identity”

Absolute synonymy – requires the possibility of substituting one word for another in any conceivable context without the least change of meaning (including style, register, attitude, etc). Probably doesn’t exist!

Propositional synonymy – substitution of terms entails the same truth conditions :
She plays the violin > She plays the fiddle
(never mind style or associative meaning; violin and fiddle can refer to the same object).

Near-synonymy – terms can be paraphrased (explained in words) the same way, but may not be felicitously used interchangeably in some contexts: a pretty woman/a handsome woman –
both are GOOD
-
LOOKING
, but probably not in the same sense!; a pretty man/a handsome man
pretty and man don’t seem to go too well together...
Differences in meaning among synonyms must be backgrounded. They include:
•
adjacent position on scale of degree: weep - sob – cry
•
aspects: calm (state) / placid (character, disposition)
•
slight differences in prototypical meaning: brave (physical) / courageous (moral)
In conclusion, Synonyms are different words with similar or identical meanings. Antonyms are words with opposite or nearly opposite meanings.
An example of synonyms are the words cat and feline. Each describes any member of the family Felidae. Similarly, if we talk about a long time or an extended time, long and extended become synonyms.
In the figurative sense, two words are often said to be synonymous if they have the same connotation:
"a widespread impression that... Hollywood was synonymous with immorality"
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
student and pupil
pretty and attractive
smart and intelligent
sick and ill
funny and humorous
died and expired
Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage, etc. make them unique. However, many people feel that the synonyms they use are identical in meaning for all practical purposes. Different words similar in meaning usually differ for a reason: feline is more formal than cat; long and extended are only synonyms in one usage and not in others, such as a long arm and an extended arm. Synonyms are also a source of euphemisms.
The purpose of a thesaurus is to offer the user a listing of similar or related words; these are often, but not always, synonyms. In a way, hyponyms are similar to synonyms.

I- Class work.
Match up each pair of words with the term that best describes the semantic relationship between the two words. (Write the letter on the appropriate line.) Each term applies to just one pair of words, i.e. use each letter exactly once.
______ car ~ automobile
______car ~ vehicle
______ in (a box) ~ in (an hour)
______ pool (of water) ~ (swimming) pool
______see ~ sea
______the law ~ the police a. homonymy
b. hyponymy
c. metaphor
d. metonymy
e. polysemy
f. synonymy

II- Homework assignment. Due on Feb. 27, 2006

1- How can one word apparently have more than one meaning? (homonymy, polysemy and semantic adaptability)
2- What kinds of relationship obtain between words of different meaning? (lexical relations: antonymy, hyponymy, polysemy, etc.)
3- What lexical restrictions are there on word sequences and how do they come to have a nonliteral meaning? (collocations, metaphors and idioms)

The Semantics of Words
1. The Nature of Meaning
1. Meaningful Relations Between Words
1. Lexical Relations
1. Synonymy
beak bill
couch sofa
gift present
2. Antonymy
1. contradictory
infinite finite
mortal immortal
2. contrary:
good healthy
not bad not sick
not good not healthy
bad sick
3. Polysemy & Homonymy
1. I can't go out now; I'm all tied up
2. When the grenade went off under the cow Billy Bob was milking, he was left holding the bag.
3. I don't own a single golf club
4. Metaphor
1. I'm all tied up.
2. Bill was climbing the wall, when the idea suddenly hit her.
3. Jane is his right hand.
4. Victor is a pig/cow/snake/dog/fox
Buffy is a pig

2. Logical Relations
1. Entailment
1. Bill married Hilary. (Bill and Hilary are married? Bill and Hilary are married to _________ ?)
2. Bill married Hilary and Hans. (Bill and Hilary are ________? )
3. Buzzy shot the bear. (The bear is dead.)
2. Contradiction
1. a living corpse
2. an unmarried bachelor
3. an uneducated college professor (?)
3. (Pre)supposition
1. Have you stopped beating your wife?
2. Are you seeing a psychiatrist?
3. I'll get the Alka-seltzer.
4. John knows that his car has been stolen.
2. Reference and Meaning
Frege's examples prove that semantics is conceptual and not perceptual
1. The evening star
2. The morning star
3. Meaning, Concepts, and Properties
1. Classical categories. Members of a category must contain all the properties defining the category.
1. What about penguins and ostriches that don't fly?
2. What about a robin that has lost both wings? Is it still a bird??
2. Fuzzy Concepts. While concepts themselves may be clear, the borders demarcating them are seldom so.
1. Where is the line drawn between a bird and a non-bird? Why is a penquin a bird? What about a bat?
2. What is an animal? Are fish animals?
3. Graded membership. Categorial properties are not simply present or absent. Instead, a member of a category may have varying degrees of a given property.
1. A robin is the prototypical bird.
2. What is a turkey?
3. What is a penguin?
4. What is a platypus?
4. Types of meaning

• Linguistic Meaning is what we will be concerned about for the time being. This is the meaning of the words themselves.
• There is also the Speaker's Meaning, which may coincide with the linguistic meaning or may not (literal vs. non-literal).
• Even within Linguistic Meaning there can be variation: idolectical meaning vs. language meaning; regional and social dialectical meanings.
2. Semantic features (componential analysis)
The semantic descriptions of words (definitions) contain three types of features:
1. Category features assign the word to a semantic category, e.g. a bird belongs to the category [FOWL].
2. Function features assign a usual state or activity to the word, e.g. a bird flies [FLY(X)] and builds nests [BUILD(X NEST)]
3. Property features list the properties distinguishing the reference of the word, e.g. a bird has a beak [BEAKED(X)] and features [FEATHERED(X)]
4. Conclusion
The semantic entry for the word for bird may be expressed as:

3. (The sub-X in [FOWLX] indicates that it is the agent (X-argument) in each of the other features.)
4. Conclusion

Words refer to things which belong to semantic categories, and every object or concept must belong to some category. Objects may belong to more than one category, but categories should be seen not as absolutes, but as a potential conglomerate of components, some number of which are necessary in some degree. The categories to which an object belongs may be written as semantic features in its semantic description, i.e. definition. The meaning of a word, therefore, is basically the sum of the features it possesses (which lead us to the category or categories to which it belongs).

The Semantics of Phrases
Predicate Argument Structure
Since semantic relations are distinct from syntactic ones, we use a special means of expressing semantic relations called predicate argument structure. Predicate argument structure is based on the function features of lexical items (most often verbs). The function features determine the thematic roles to be played by the other words in the sentence. However, function features and thematic roles don't always cooincide.
A. A predicate specifies a relationship between objects (concrete or abstract) or a state that characterizes an object, e.g. [BIT(BOY, DOG)] 'the boy bit the dog'. A predicate may also be a property: [BIG{DOG}] 'the dog is big/a big dog'.
B. Arguments refer to real-world objects about which something is predicated; they are placed in parantheses after predicates:
Lexical Entry Semantic Example Paraphrase
RUN(X) = RUN(MARY) = Mary runs/ran/is running
RED(X) = RED(CAR) = The car is/was/will be red
MAKE(XY) = MADE(JOHN, TABLE) = John made the table
IN(XY) = IN(SUE, HOUSE) = Sue is in the house
MOTHER(X) = MOTHER(SUE) = Sue's mother/the mother of Sue

II. Syntax and Semantics
How then does semantics interpret a syntactic structure with lexical and grammatical content? Two things can occur, either semantics can be directly derived from the syntactic arrangement, or semantics rejects the overt syntactic relationships and moves to the next logical syntactic component.

A. Semantics Follows Syntax.
Generally, arguments fill predicates depending on their syntactic relation. In a simple sentence that uses a transitive verb (and therefore has both a subject NP and a direct object NP), the following occurs.
1. The semantic content of the subject, the first NP under S, is mapped onto the 'X' argument of the function.
2. The semantic content of the first NP under VP, the direct object, is mapped onto the 'Y' argument.

3. If the predicate takes an experiencer rather than an agent, it will only have a 'Y' argument. (Note that this semantic structure is different from the one posited with thematic roles only.)

a. This example also shows that grammatical functions (e.g., [+Past], [-Definite], [+Demonstrative]) map onto semantic correlates which have argument structures, too.
b. The compilation of semantic relations probably takes place in the lexicon as words are selected for inclusion in the syntactic tree.
B. Sometimes Semanatics Doesn't Follow Syntax.
However, in these cases (which are not as common) semantics interprets syntactic structures by its own rules.
1. An occasional sailor walked by. The adjunct occasional in this phrase is a syntactic constituent of the NP headed by sailor; however, semantically it is an adjunct of the VP headed by walked.

2. The Syntactic Structure:

3. The syntactic structure shows that
a. the argument for occasional (whose meaning is, presumably, [INFREQUENT(Y)]) should be sailor.
b. But sailors can't be infrequent but walking by can be.
c. So the semantic component follows its own rules and finds the next head that can be infrequent, the V.

d. What abou the adjunct in: Juanita read a sad story?

III. Conclusion
The semantic component uses syntactic structure in order to locate subject (X-arguments in transitive clauses and Y-arguments in some intransitive ones) and object (Y-argument in transitive clauses). Generally NPs are arguments of Vs and As. All XPs may be arguments of grammatical functions. However, it has its own rules which it can apply when regular mapping from syntax to semantics renders an anomalous meaning. Next time we will see some more disjunctures between syntax and semantics.

Piczo