|
V. Conclusion.
The problem of synonymy, though generally recognized as a type of
paradigmatic semantic relations in the lexicon, at present does not represent a
universal theory neither in English nor in Uzbek linguistics. As we tried to
demonstrate in our research, the complexity in the solution of the basic issues of
synonymy brought to the fact that a few linguists even reject the possibility of
the research of synonymy. However we claim that the conclusion of futility and
inexpediency of the studies aimed at the definition of the essence of synonymy.
is not at all grounded.
In practice synonymy may be interpreted by some linguists in a narrow and
broader sense: some consider them as words differentiating in some semantic
shade, others reject the existence of synonymy in the form which is generally
understood. However the problems of establishing the criteria of synonymity
and its codification status in national linguistics has not yet been finalized.
In this research we have described the basic criteria for establishing
synonymy of lexical units, which is their common notional reference. The
notion encompasses all sides and characteristics of the object, to which it relates.
Variants expressing this notion in the form of linguistic signs can express either
the whole of the information covered by the notion, or some of its parts. Another
criteria in defining synonymy of lexical units is their interchangeability in the
context.
Synonymic row is distinguished by the semantic amplitude of the
oscillation with respect to the dominant of the row of synonyms, which in our
material was represented by the headword SMART, with the closest synonyms
to be the highest difference in the synonymic realization of the word. The
synonymic row is not restricted and in certain situations includes non-normative
units, defined through normative, neutral words, making then basis of the
85
literary national language. Meaning of a word is fully reflected in its contextual
relations, in fact, we can go further, and say that for present purposes the
meaning of a word is constituted by its contextual relations.
Synonyms are lexical units whose senses are identical in respect of
‘central’ semantic traits but differ, if at all, only in respect of what we may
provisionally describe as ‘minor’ or ‘peripheral’ traits. Within the class of
synonyms, some pairs of synonyms are ‘more synonymous’ than other pairs:
intelligent
and
clever
are more synonymous than
intelligent
and
tidy
or
neat.
Synonyms characteristically occur together in certain types of
expressions, For instance, a synonym is often employed as a explanatory or
classificatory of meaning of another words. The relationship between the two
words is frequently signaled by something like
’that is to say’
or a particular
variety of
‘or’:
E.g. : He was smart, that is to say, intelligent.
This is a cheeky guy, or insolent.
When synonyms are used contrastively, as they sometimes are, it is normal to
signal the fact that it is the difference which must be attended to by some such
expression as ‘
more exactly’
or
‘rather’
:
E.g. He was amusingly clever, or rather, witty.
Some pairs are more synonymous, than others, and this raises the
possibility of a scale of synonymy of some kind. A scale needs at least one well-
defined end-point; and if there is only one, it is more satisfactory to form the
origin, or zero-point, on the scale. As regards to degrees of synonymity it seems
that the point of semantic identity – i.e. absolute synonymy – can be established
with some clarity; the notion of zero synonymity, on the other hand, is rather
more diffused.
Lexical units will be absolute synonyms (i.e. would have identical
meanings) if and only if all their contextual relations were identical. This might
be illustrated by examples candidates for absolute synonyms: clever::intelligent,
neat::tidy, shrewd::canny, however it is easy to refute this statement, as
86
‘intelligent’ has also ‘reasonable’, and
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
