Synonymy (or synonymity), in the traditional sense of the word is similarity of meaning.
One of the most controversial problems in modern linguistics is the problem of criteria of synonymy, i.e. what words should be considered synonyms.
There are three main criteria:
(1) the notional criterion,
(2) the semantic criterion,
(3) the substitution criterion, or the criterion of interchangeability.
Traditional linguistics used the notional criterion and defined synonyms as words of the same part of speech conveying the same notion but differing either in shades of meaning or in stylistic characteristics.
In modern research on synonymy, the semantic criterion is used. Synonyms are defined as words with the same denotative component but differing in connotative components. overweight (neutral) - fat (negative).
Yet, synonyms differ not only in the connotative component but in the denotative component as well.
e.g. to look, to seem, to appear don't differ in their connotations; they mean "to give the impression", but seem suggests an opinion based on subjective impressions and personal reaction, while look implies an opinion based on general visual impression; appear often suggests a distorted impression, for ex.: She seemed a capable woman, intent on her work.
He looks a playwright, his appearance fits the part.
His tongue could make the worse appear the better reason.
The difference between the verbs lies in the denotative components.
copy and forge are similar in meaning this is all very well, but Forge means "illegally copy smth, esp smth. written or printed"). Synonyms are both the same and different, that's why they can be opposed to each other
The third criterion of synonymy, i.e. the criterion of interchangeability has been much criticized. According to it, synonyms are defined as words interchangeable in all or at least some contexts. True, some synonyms are interchangeable in some environments (but not in others),
e.g. deep/profound sympathy, but only deep water.
On the one hand, substituting one synonym for another changes the utterance as synonyms do not mean exactly the same.
e.g. He glared at her (=looked angrily) ≠ He stared at her ≠ He gaped at her (= look with an open mouth and in surprise).
On the other hand, words that are not synonymous may be interchangeable in some contexts.
e.g. flower and rose are not synonyms but are related in terms of hyponymy and can be substituted one for the other: He admired the rose/the flower.
He can be substituted for man: The man/He entered the room.
Thus, the criterion of interchangeability cannot be accepted as a valid one.
The only existing classification of synonyms was worked out by Academician Vinogradov. It comprises 3 types of synonyms:
1. ideographic synonyms, conveying the same notion but differing in shades of meaning,
2. stylistic synonyms, differing in stylistic characteristics,
3. absolute (total) synonyms, coinciding in all shades of meaning and stylistic characteristics.
This classification is open to criticism. Firstly, absolute synonyms are very rare; the language tends to get rid of them (e.g. spirant and fricative). It does not seem necessary to include them in the general classification. Secondly, the term "shade of meaning" is vague. Thirdly, synonyms may differ both in denotative components and stylistic characteristics,
e.g. handsome "of fine form or figure" - pretty "attractive in dainty or graceful way" - bonny "comely; healthy looking; pleasing". (N.Eng & Sc)
Synonyms are usually arranged in sets (i.e. groups). The number of synonyms in such sets may vary from 2 up to a dozen or even more (and may be different in different dictionaries),e.g. beautiful, good-looking, handsome, pretty, lovely, fair,bonny, comely, beauteous, attractive.
Strictly speaking, members of synonymic sets are not words but lexico-semantic variants, so one polysemantic word may enter different sets of synonyms,
e.g. poor ¹ - inferior, unsatisfactory, imperfect;
poor ² - penniless, needy, impoverished.
A synonymic set has a central word, called the dominant synonym; it expresses the meaning common to each synonym in the set. It is characterized by:
1) high frequency of usage,
2) broad combinability, i.e. ability to combine with various word classes,
3) broad general meaning, i.e. its meaning more or less "covers" the meaning of the other synonyms, so it may be substituted for any of them,
4) neutral stylistic reference.
e.g. In the set to surprise - to astonish - to amaze - to astound the dominant synonym is to surprise;
The law of synonymic attraction.
Subjects that are prominent in the interest of a community attract a large number of synonyms. e.g. In the USA there are more than two dozen words denoting "money": dough, bucks, the chips, green stuff/paper, long green/bread (Black), etc.
Radiation of synonyms.
When a word develops a transferred meaning, its synonyms tend to acquire the same meaning,e.g. to get - to grasp "to understand".
