Words_about_words_An_introduction_to_Eng

Word Meaning

There is no such animal as a unicorn.

There is no such book as a unicorn.

The former sentence is perfectly acceptable, while the latter is semantically odd. They demonstrate that, while the lexemes book and unicorn are incompatible, animal and unicorn are related in sense.

Of denotation, reference and sense, it is the last that will lie at the basis of the discussion of sense relations between words later in this chapter.

4.4.3. Denotation, connotation and markedness

In lexical semantics, some linguists (though there is no total agreement on the matter) draw a binary distinction between denotation and connotation, or denotative and connotative meaning (Kastovsky 1982, Hansen et al 1985, Ullmann 1962, etc). Approaching meaning in terms of denotation and connotation is closely linked to synonymy (which shall be detailed upon later) in that synonyms are regarded as having the same denotation, i.e. the same cognitive or conceptual meaning, but different connotations (in other words, synonyms may be specifically marked by connotations). This additional aspect of meaning, as opposed to the central denotational core, may be illustrated with the following examples of “stylistic” or “social and affective meaning” from Leech (1981: 14), as they are reproduced by Lipka (2002: 80):

The twofold distinction between denotation and connotation may be justified by the fact that denotation refers to the relationship holding between a linguistic sign and its denotatum. Connotations are, however, additional characteristics of lexemes. Leech (1981: 14) marks steed as poetic, nag as slang and gee-gee as baby language. Various dictionaries label them differently: steed may be, according to some, literary rhetorical / humorous, nag may be colloquial, while gee-gee may be used by or when spoken to children. Domicile is considered very formal, official by Leech, while, in dictionaries, it is labeled formal or legal. Abode is viewed as poetic by Leech, and old / literary / legal by various dictionaries, etc.

It follows from here that the words in each of the three columns above have the same denotation, but differ in connotation, in other words,

75

Words about Words

they are marked, or instances of marking or markedness (cf. Lyons 1977: 305). Lyons characterizes the words written in italics as “general”.

The notion of marking or markedness is derived from phonology, where the marked member of a pair of phonemes has some additional features as compared to the other member (/d/ in the pair /t/ - /d/ is voiced, for example, while /t/ is not; consequently, /d/ is considered marked). By analogy, the words horse, home and throw in Leech’s example may be considered unmarked, while the others are marked in one way or another. The unmarked lexemes are neutral and not restricted to a particular instance of use, while de marked ones are most readily used in some contexts and excluded from others.

Connotatively marked lexemes in a language may be subcategorized in various ways. As Lipka (2002: 82) indicates, certain aspects of linguistic variation may serve to distinguish between regional, temporal and social connotations. Besides stylistically, affectively, or emotionally marked lexemes, we could furthermore group lexical items according to regional or dialectal, archaic or neologistic, and sociolinguistic variation (cf. Lipka 1988a). We could draw on parameters like ‘medium’, ‘field, mode, tenor’, or, like Leech, on ‘province, status, modality’”.

Some of these approaches to connotations are comprised in the system suggested by Hansen et al (1985). Its most important points are indicated below in a diagrammatic form, though with much fewer examples than those offered by the authors. The three main classes of connotations are, according to them, the following:

A.stylistic: edifice, swain, apothecary, bakshees, buddy, bugger;

B.expressive: niggard, bastard, dolly bird;

C.regional: elevator, streetcar, truck, wee.

These are further sub-classified by the authors as represented in the following diagrams (Lipka 2002: 83):

76

Word Meaning

Fig. 3. Categories of connotation

Regional variation is not divided into other sub-classes by Hansen et al (1985). However, the authors mention varieties such as British, American, Scottish, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African, Indian English and also point at interior differentiations within these (eg. Northern English). They only give examples of Americanisms, stating that American English is currently exerting a great influence over British English and that the process of fluctuation of words from one of these two varieties into the other is, at present, very active.

What I understand from the taxonomy of connotations suggested by Lipka and his colleagues (1985) is that, according to them, the same referent may be referred to by using different words, with different connotations. Thus, they seem to neglect the fact that even the same word, used to refer to a single referent, may gain various connotative dimensions depending on the context of its being used. A simple word such as home may carry connotations of joy, excitement, sadness or boredom, depending on who utters it and when (somebody saying I’ll stay home tonight doing nothing may attach the idea of boredom to it, while somebody else exclaiming We are back home! after a long journey may link joy to it, etc.).

4.5. Sense relations between words

As it was pointed out in 4.2., sense is a relational concept, referring to the links between the lexemes and expressions of a language. In what

77

Words about Words

follows I shall survey the types of such links, under the general heading “sense relations”.

4.5.1. Synonymy

4.5.1.1. General characteristics of synonyms

Synonyms are words belonging to the same morphological class• which have the same core meaning, though they may differ in shades of meaning, connotation, distribution, collocation and idiomatic use. Synonyms are interchangeable at least in some, if not in all contexts of use. Thus, for example, busy and occupied are synonyms in I’m afraid Mr. Brown is busy / occupied, but busy cannot substitute occupied in This seat is occupied. Liberty and freedom are interchangeable in They fought for their liberty / freedom, but one can only say I’m not at liberty to tell you the truth in English. To start and to begin may both be used in She started / began to cry upon hearing the news, but only start may correctly collocate with car (I started my car). In the same way, one can either win or gain a victory, but one can only win a war. When synonyms are interchangeable in particular contexts, they are considered to be in “equipollent distribution” (Hulban 1975: 155). Alone may be used only predicatively, while its synonyms solitary and lonely may be employed both as attributes and as predicative adjuncts. In the grammatical contexts which are not shared, words such as alone, solitary and lonely are considered “grammatical distributional opposites” (Hulban 1975: 156).

Synonyms may be arranged in synonymic series containing two or more elements. In such series, one of the terms acquires a dominant position, being the most general among the others and the most frequently used in the language. This term is labeled the synonymic dominant and it becomes the head word in dictionaries. To illustrate, in the synonymic series to leave – to depart – to clear out – to retire, it is to leave that is the synonymic dominant, since it is neutral stylistically and can replace any of the other members of the group.

Going back to the matters connected to connotation, I may say that the synonymic dominant is the unmarked term of the series, while all the other terms are marked in terms of connotations of various kinds.

Simple words may establish correlative synonymic relationships with collocations, phrases or idioms as in the pairs to win – to gain the

upper hand, to decide – to make up one’s mind, to hesitate – to be in two

• Although this is the generally accepted point of view, linguists such as Jones (2002) suggest that antonymy may hold between words that belong to different word classes. For example, in Lighten our darkness, we pray, the verb lighten and the noun darkness form an antonymic pair. In She remembered to shut the door but left the window open, the verb to shut and the adjective open are in a relation of antonymy.

78

Word Meaning

minds, to swing the lead – to exaggerate, neck and crop – entirely, to laugh – to give a laugh, to prefer – to show preference, to go after – to

follow, to go on – to continue, to give in – to surrender.

As Hulban (1975) observes, correlative synonymic relations are also met in the case of some special stylistic synonyms, in which the name of a writer, inventor, etc. is replaced by a descriptive phrase, as in Chaucer – the

father of English literature or Shakespeare – the sweet swan of Avon. Correlative synonymic relations may also be recognized in certain

phrases that are made up of two synonyms linked by the copulative conjunction “and”: with might and main, lord and master, stress and

strain, each and every, liberty and freedom, really and truly, last will and testament, exiled and banished, etc. As Cruse (1986) points out, synonyms occur together in another type of expressions, namely when a synonym is employed as an explanation or clarification of the meaning of another word. The relationship between the two words is frequently signalled by something like “that is to say”, or a particular variety of “or” as in: He was

cashiered, that is to say, dismissed and in This is an ounce, or snow

leopard.

When synonyms are used contrastively, as they sometimes are, it is customary to indicate the fact that it is their different peripheral meanings which must be attended to, by phrases such as “more exactly” or “rather” as in the following examples offered by Cruse (1986: 267): He was murdered,

or rather executed, On the table there were a few grains or, more exactly,

granules of the substance.

Polysemantic words have different synonymic series for each of their senses. For example, ill in the sense of “not in full physical or mental health” is synonymous with ailing, indisposed, sick, unwell. If it means “bad”, possible synonyms for it are evil, wicked, wrong.

Synonyms occur in a number of idioms and proverbs in English. Examples of the former include to be on pins and needles, while the latter may be illustrated by It never rains but it pours. They may also be employed as stylistic devices contributing to giving more expressive force to a particular description or to nuancing it, as Hulban (1975: 162 -164) illustrates quoting G.B. Shaw:

I give you up. You are factproof. I am lazy; I am idle; and I am breaking down from overwork. Don’t you like these dear old-world places? I do.

I don’t. They ought all to be rooted up, pulled down, burnt to the ground.

4.5.1.2. Types of synonyms

There are several types of synonyms, such as: strict / perfect / absolute synonyms, ideographic synonyms and stylistic synonyms.

79

Words about Words

Two lexical units would be perfect synonyms (i.e. would have identical meanings) “if and only if all their contextual relations were identical” says Cruse (1986: 268). The linguist adds that it would be “impracticable” to prove that two lexical items are perfect synonyms following this definition, since that would mean checking their occurrences in all conceivable contexts, a thing that is surely impossible, the number of such contexts being infinite. However, proving that absolute synonymy remains at the level of theory and does not practically exist in real contexts of language use (a point of view expressed by numerous other linguists) should not be very difficult, since a single discrepancy in the pattern of the contextual relations of the candidates to absolute synonymy would be sufficient proof in this sense. Cruse (1986: 268)) chooses to demonstrate the practical impossibility of absolute synonymy starting from his opinion that “equinormality in all contexts is the same as identity of meaning”. Based on this approach, two lexical items that are not equally normal in at least one syntactic context cannot be considered strict synonyms. This is the case of the pairs begin – commence, munch – chew, hate – loathe, scandalous – outrageous, for which discriminating contexts can be found, though they might seem perfectly interchangeable in all instances of use (Cruse (1986: 269) marks the “more normal” contexts with + and the “less normal” ones with -):

Tell Mummy when Playschool begins and she’ll watch it with you. (+) Tell Mummy when Playschool commences and she’ll watch it with you. (-)

Arthur is always chewing gum. (+)

Arthur is always munching gum. (-)

I don’t just hate him, I loathe him. (+)

I don’t just loathe him, I hate him. (-)

That is a scandalous waste of money. (+)

That is an outrageous waste of money. (-)

Besides the test of normality, there are other arguments brought against perfect synonymy. One of these is, for example, the fact that the economy of language would not tolerate (except, perhaps, for a very limited period of time) the existence of two lexical items with exactly the same meaning. Another one is of a historical nature. If absolute synonyms do occur at a certain moment in the development of a language, what happens is that, usually, one of the items falls into obsolescence and is, ultimately, no longer used, it remains to be used in particular dialects or stylistic varieties only or it begins to be employed in contexts from which the other is excluded. Thus, Jackson and Amvela (2007: 109) offer a list of archaic or obsolete words which have fallen out of use and have been replaced by the items mentioned in brakets: culver (pigeon), fain (willing), divers

80

Word Meaning

(various), levin (lightning), dorp (village), trig (neat), warrener

(gamekeeper), wight (human being), erst (formerly). On the other hand, when enemy was imported into English from French, its Anglo-Saxon correspondent foe began to be used more in the literary than in the everyday language. In the same way, mutton (from the French mouton) and sheep were perfect synonyms for a very limited period of time, up to the moment when the former specialized to designate the meat of sheep, while the latter got restricted to refer to the animal itself.

The discussion of synonymy so far has attempted at demonstrating by arguments that perfect synonymy is rejected by actual language use. “When we speak of synonymy, then, we mean varying degrees of ‘loose’ synonymy, where we identify not only a significant overlap in meaning between two words, but also some contexts at least where they cannot substitute for each other” (Jackson, Amvela 2007: 109). Loose synonymy is illustrated by at least two types of synonyms, ideographic and stylistic.

Ideographic synonyms share the core meaning, but differ in shades of meaning in that certain notes characteristic of the notions, phenomena, objects denoted by these words are accented. They may also differ in connotation, collocation patterns and idiomatic use. In the pair of synonyms to love – to adore, for example, to love is rather neutral, while to adore bears connotations of worship or passion. Crowd refers to a disorganized group of people, while its synonym, mob refers to the same group, but connotes the idea of riotous intentions as well. As it is pointed out in the Longman Dictionary of the English Language (1991: 141), quoted by Jacskon and Amvela (2007: 108), “Beg, entreat, beseech, implore, supplicate and importune all signify the making of an appeal which is likely to be refused or demurred at. A person begs for what s/he cannot claim as a right; beg suggests earnestness, insistence, and sometimes self-abasement. By entreating someone, one hopes to persuade him / her by earnest pleading and reasoning. Beseech and implore convey eager anxiety which seeks to inspire sympathy or pity. Implore may be stronger than beseech, with a suggestion of tearfulness or evident anguish. Supplicate adds to entreat a humble, prayerful attitude <invite, entreat, supplicate to accompany you - Lord Chesterfield>. Importune denotes persistence with one’s requests to the point of annoyance or even harassment.”

The category of stylistic synonyms includes words having the same notional components of meaning, but differing in their stylistic reference or degree of formality. Jackson and Amvela (2007: 111) offer examples of pairs of synonyms in which one of the members is used in informal or less formal contexts, while the other is used in more formal contexts. Such examples include: archer – toxophilite, argument –

disputation, beauty – pulchritude, cross – traverse, die – decease, give up

– renounce, letter – missive, praise – eulogy, warning – caveat, western – occidental. They also mention pairs of synonymous words of which one

81

Words about Words

belongs to standard English and the other to English slang. The following examples illustrate this type of stylistic synonyms: astonished –

gobsmacked, crash – prang, destroy – zap, drunk - sloshed, face – phizog,

heart – ticker, insane - barmy, money – rhino, steal – nick.

Besides the formal – informal, standard – slang pairs of synonyms, distinctions such as technical – non-technical, neutral – poetic, speech – writing may also be made as in: incision (technical) – cut (non-technical), lesion (technical) – cut (common), happiness (neutral) – bliss (poetic), merry (neutral) – jocund (poetic), you’re (speech) – you are (writing).

A particular stylistic synonymic relationship is established between a taboo word and its corresponding euphemistic words or expressions. A euphemism is a mild, indirect or less offensive word or expression substituted when the speaker / writer fears that more direct wording might be harsh, unpleasantly direct or offensive (when resorted to by officials such as members of the Parliament, officers, lawyers, etc., the use of euphemisms is known as “doublespeak”). Thus, the verb to die enters a stylistic synonymic relationship with the following euphemistic (idiomatic) phrases: to breathe one’s last (breath, gasp), to depart this life, to pay one’s

debt to nature, to go to one’s last home, to go the way of all flesh, to kick the bucket, to hop the twig, to join the majority, to be no more, to buy a

pine condo, to cross the river to reach the eternal reward, to go to the other side, etc. A stupid person has a couple of eggs shy of a dozen, a few

beers short of a six-pack, a few clowns short of a circus, a few bricks short of a wall, a kangaroo loose in the paddock, s/he is not the sharpest knife in

the drawer, not the brightest light in the harbour / on the Christmas tree, not tied too tight to the pier, knitting with only one needle, not firing on all

cylinders, s/he is as useful as a wooden frying pan, as a screen door on a submarine or as tits on a bull, s/he is a person whose elevator stuck

between floors, who got into the gene pool when the lifeguard wasn’t

watching, who fell out of the family tree or who goes fishing in Nebraska. Somebody who is old is mature or a senior, surveillance is a stylistic euphemistic synonym of spying, a theft is an inventory shrinkage or a

property redistribution, a jail is a secure facility, public donation and shared sacrifice refer to paying taxes, a sanitation worker is a trash collector and a drug addict is euphemistically called a substance abuser.

No matter what useful and innovative linguistic elements euphemisms might be, they are short-lived. Their presence in the language is conditioned by social and cultural conventions which are continuously changing so that what is considered taboo at a certain moment might be soon accepted and the need for the euphemisms referring to it might well fall out of use. What might save them from disappearing from the language is their stylistic potential.

Dysphemisms, roughly the opposites of euphemisms, are coarser and more direct words and phrases that are used to replace both more refined and quite common lexical items, for humorous or deliberately

82

Word Meaning

offensive purposes. The relationship between the euphemism and the common word designating its referent may be considered stylistic synonymy as well. Thus, a bean counter is an accountant, a grease monkey is a mechanic, a sawbones - a surgeon and a quack - a doctor. Brain bucket is the dysphemism used for motorcycle helmet, Jesus juice - for wine and muffin top - for the flesh that “erupts” over the sides of low-rider tight jeans. A dead tree edition is the paper edition of an online magazine, while somebody who has become worm flesh has actually died. Like euphemisms, dysphemisms cannot boast but a momentary presence in the language, conditioned by cultural and social conventions. A word or phrase that is, at a certain moment, used as a euphemism may evolve into an unacceptable taboo itself and the need of replacing it by a new euphemism arises. The process has been called the “euphemism treadmill” by Steven Pinker (2002: 212) and may be illustrated by examples of successive replacements of euphemisms such as: imbecile – mentally retarded – developmentally

disabled / mentally challenged / with an intellectual disability / with

special needs or lame – crippled – handicapped – disabled – differently abled. Similar to the concept of euphemism treadmill, a complementary “dysphemism treadmill” exists, though it is more rarely observed. In its case, words and phrases once considered offensive are later described as “objectionable”, then as “questionable”, and, in some cases, as “nearly or outright acceptable” in the end. One modern example, according to Wikipedia online, is the word sucks. That sucks began as American slang for that is very unpleasant, and is a shortened version for oral sex / fellatio. It developed over the late-20th century from being an extremely vulgar phrase to lower-class, nearly mainstream slang. The same may be said of the use of screw, often used as slang for sexual intercourse, in such usages as to screw up, meaning to make a major mistake.

4.5.1.3. Sources of synonymy

English is a language that is very rich in synonyms. The main reason for the abundance of synonymous words is connected with the history of the language, in particular, with its having borrowed an impressive number of lexical items from other languages.

In a pair of synonyms made up of a native and a borrowed word, it is the native element that is felt to be neutral and, therefore, it is this element that is used most frequently. In literature, however, many of the words for which there is a native correspondent are French, while in the scientific jargon, terms of Greek and Latin origin are preferred.

When described, such synonyms are usually organized on a double or a triple scale, in which the source of borrowing into English is indicated and not the language to which the etymon of the words can be traced back.

Hulban’s (1975; 158-159) examples of double and triple scales of synonymy include:

83

In literary language, especially in the case of abstract notions, synonymic series may be detected that are formed only of words borrowed from French or Latin:

84