Chapter One: Theoretical background of synonymy

The critical aim of this chapter is to outline several theories of synonymy. The first point must be considered what synonymy is. To achieve this purpose, the first section examines what features synonyms share. The second problem to be dealt with is to point out the different types of synonyms. For better understanding, different ways of typology are applied in the text to highlight words such as synonym, synonymy, synonymity, and point out the names of the different types of synonyms.


1. 1. Synonyms


In order to understand what special word-group the selected lexical items - happen, befall, occur, take place, eventuate, pass, go on, fall - belong to, first one should clarify what synonymy is.

To this end, it is necessary to examine first the following aspects of dictionaries and encyclopaedias studied regarding their definition of the term. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “the study and classification of synonyms, or a list, book, or system of synonyms” (2000, p. 1). However, the term is illustrated in the same book as “the quality of being synonymous, an equivalence of meaning” (2000, p. 1). Wikipedia defines “synonymy as a kind of semantic relation” (2001, p. 1). The definition of synonymy in Wikipedia refers to “two words that are synonyms when they have the same meaning” (2001, p. 1).

On the basis of Cruse’s fundamental book on meaning in language, synonymy means the “sameness of meaning” (2004, p. 154), whereas Saeed defines synonyms “amongst semantic relations like ambiguity, contradiction and antonymy, all that come from meaning relations between expressions within a language” (2003, p. 46). In this connection, Lyons’s definition states that “there is an opposition between a more central, stylistically neutral component of meaning and a more peripheral, or subjective component of meaning, that is the commonplace of discussions of synonymy” (1997, p. 175). Lyons applies former linguists’ ideas such as Odgen’s and Richard’s, who distinguish the reference of words and expressions from what they call emotive meaning - their capacity to produce a certain emotional effect upon the hearer and the listener. They approach this question from the point of view of the philosophical notion of reference: the relationship which holds between the expression and the referent (Lyons, 1997, p. 175). However, Lyons also defines “synonymy as the most familiar of all sense relations, no doubt to be what is commonly called cognitive, descriptive or referential synonymy: the sameness of sense” (2002, p. 469). Apart from these, Gecső regards meaning as the basis of synonymy. According to Gecső, “in case of the practice of native-speakers, synonymy is nothing else than their ability of recognizing and applying meaning-similarities” (1998, p. 78). To sum up the definitions, the main issue the researcher must focus on in connection with synonymy is “similarity” and “meaning”.

Synonyms can be illustrated by means of the features they share. Particular attention is paid to the aspects which make synonyms a special group of words. The main issue the definitions are focused on is “similarity in meaning”. This thought is echoed in Gecso’s definition saying “interchangeability of meaning is the main criterion of synonymy” (1998, p. 80). In this connection synonyms can be determined by the theoretical explanation of the American Heritage Dictionary, which defines synonyms as “words having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language” (2000, p. 1). Another definition the dictionary provides refers for synonyms is “words or expressions that serve a figurative or symbolic substitute for another” (2000, p. 1). Wikipedia gives a similar still more exact explanation emphasising the sameness in their meaning. According to Wikipedia synonyms are different words with similar meanings, and are interchangeable. This encyclopaedia draws attention to the important criterion that “synonyms can be nouns, verbs, adverbs or adjectives, as long as members of the same parts of speech” (2001, p. 1).

From a linguistic point of view, Károly defines synonyms as “items of language that refer to the same truth-conditions such as fruit and apple, or furniture and table” (1970, p. 88). Thus “synonymy is a descriptive concept, on the basis of the relation between two words whether they are substitutable with each other or not” (1970, p. 88). As the example suggests, interchangeability is the main attribute of synonymous lexical items. In Lexical Semantics synonyms are described as “certain parts or groups of lexical items that bear a special sort of semantic resemblance to another” (Cruse, 1986, p. 265). However, Cruse draws attention to the Dictionary of English Synonyms, which lists “kill” as a synonym of “murder”, but interestingly, not vice versa (1986, p. 265). Opposite the previous view, Cruse points out that synonyms are not necessarily interchangeable; he emphasises that there are some which are more synonymous than others.

This former observation triggers off his idea about “the scale of synonymity” (Cruse, 1986, p. 265). This concept constitutes the basis of his classification to establish the different types of synonyms. Apart from these, Cruse defines them as lexical items “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” (1986, p. 266). These common traits are the evidence of synonyms having a significant degree of semantic overlap. This thought also leads to the classification of synonyms and the formation of the different classes they have (1986, p. 266).

In Meaning in Language Cruse defines synonyms as “words whose semantic similarities are more salient than their differences” (2004, p. 154). He suggests some important observations about the sameness of meaning and the scale of synonymity, the frequency of synonyms, and some particular areas of the vocabulary regarding them (2004, p. 154). From this point of view, Lyons defines synonyms as lexemes that do not have a determinate number of distinct meanings. He describes synonyms as the “natural essence of languages when lexical meanings shade into one another and are indefinitely extensible” (1981, p. 148). Based on this definition, synonymy is an “identity of meaning” (1981, p. 148).

In Patterns and Meaning synonyms are defined on the basis of Lyons’s and Kempson’s explanation, which connects synonymy to “semantic relations, especially with the concept of entailment” (Partington, 1998, p. 32). Based on his analysis, Kempson regards synonymy as “mutual entailment” (Partington, 1998, p. 32) like logicians do. Similarly, in Lyons’s study synonyms are described as “sense relations, and the classification is based on the observation of the sameness of sense, by which we can establish the different types of synonyms” (2002, p. 469). Saeed adopts a similar approach; he explains synonyms in terms of “sense relations” (2003, p. 46).

Edmond and Hirst study the concept of near-synonymy based on their observations regarding synonyms. They are defined as “words that can express a myriad of implications, connotations, and attitudes in addition to its basic dictionary meaning” (2001, p. 105). Thus they state that “synonymy has often been thought of as a non-problem, either there are synonyms, but they are completely identical in meaning and hence easy to deal with, or there are no synonyms, in which case each word can be handled like any other” (2001, p. 106).



So far this section has dealt with the explanation of synonymy. The following criteria that synonyms must fulfil have been collected:

They have the same or similar meaning.
They belong to the same word-class.
They are allowed to occur in different forms and have different style.
They are interchangeable with each other or not.
Based on the features that make words synonymous, the selected lexical items can be established to be synonyms of each other for the following reasons:

Happen and the lexical items are similar in meaning, they all express a “sort of happening”.
They belong to the same word-class, they are verbs.
They differ in the way the action is performed. They have different style and different forms.
Mostly they are not interchangeable with each other as they differ in the way the action is performed or carried out:
For example, happen and take place are similar in meaning, but take place refers to “happen especially after previously being arranged or planned” (OALDC, 2005, p.1105). However, happen is described as “take place without being planned” (OALDCE, 2005, p. 677).

Comparing happen with befall, befall is used in case “of something unpleasant or dangerous is happening to you” (OALDCE, 2005, p. 120), whereas happen is employed in situations such as “taking place by chance or as a result of something” (OALDCE, 2005, p. 677).

Another example is the case of the items - happen and eventuate: eventuate is used to express “to happen at the end of a process or period of time” (MEDAL, 2002, p. 473), but happen is not connected to any restrictions of time in the dictionaries.

Similarly, based on the comparison of happen and fall, it can be declared that fall means “happen on a particular day or at a particular time” (LDCE, 2005, p. 566), whereas happen does not refer to the same content of truth.

The style of the lexical items suggests some differences, too. For example, happen is followed by the reference “informal” (MEDAL, 2002, p. 647) similarly to occur (MEDAL, 2002, p. 978), but eventuate is marked with “very formal style” (MEDAL, 2005, p. 473) in the dictionaries.


1. 2. Types of synonyms


This section examines the different types of synonyms. The objective is to show how synonyms have been classified by different linguists. Different classifications are crucial to study to establish what group of synonyms the lexical items belong to. First of all Lyons’s classification is considered. He states that “there are few words in at least the everyday vocabulary of well-studied natural languages that are absolutely synonymous in that they can be used in some range of contexts without any difference of affective, emotive or socio-expressive meaning. There are, however, many if not all, natural languages sets of two or more words that are cognitively or descriptively synonymous.” (2002, p. 469) From his point of view, Lyon defines synonymy as the sameness of meaning, and makes a distinction between cognitive and descriptive (referential) synonyms.

One further problem is what Alan Cruse calls a “scale of synonymity” (1986, p. 88). He says that “the lexical relation which parallels identity in the membership of two classes is synonymy, where the relation is defined in terms of truth-conditional relations” (1986, p. 88). In this connection one must survey the different “degrees of synonymity” (1986, p. 265). From his point of view, Cruse applies the term synonymy referring to lexical relations differing from synonymity that can be interpreted as a scale of those relations containing their different degrees. The starting point is having “two robust semantic intuitions that are the basis of the special sort of semantic resemblance between certain pairs or group of lexical items. These two intuitions seem to point to something like a scale of synonymity” (Cruse, 1986, p. 265). It is due to the fact that some pairs of synonyms seem to be more synonymous than others. For example, the adjectives “strong” and “powerful” do not share the feature of being interchangeable while other pairs do. Therefore, Cruse establishes that there must be some differences between synonyms which make them different in types. He classifies synonyms as absolute, partial absolute, cognitive and plesionyms. (1986, p. 268)

Absolute synonyms can be “words or group of words if and only if all their contextual relations are identical” (Cruse, 1986, p. 268). A further group is what Cruse calls partial absolute. They are “lexical items that can occur only in contexts in which both items are syntactically normal” (1986, p. 269). This definition means that partial absolute synonyms are used only in contexts where each is equally at home syntactically. Due to this “hide” and “conceal” are not absolute but partial absolute synonyms since there is a difference between their normality. Replacing these lexical items with each other in certain contexts sounds rather odd.

Therefore in this case a difference in normality turns up between two word-forms in a particular context, which makes these lexical items just partial absolute synonyms. These aspects show clearly that absolute synonyms, which fulfil the previous requirement, are rather rare in a natural language, and Cruse regards them as “the end-point of his inverse scale of synonymity” (1986, p. 270).

Besides, Cruse explains that “including the previous point, but extending some distance along the scale, there is a region which represents cognitive synonymity. To be cognitive synonyms a pair of lexical items must have certain semantic properties in common. Very few pairs of cognitive synonyms are absolute synonyms. It is because in the majority of the cases a lexical item must, in some respects at least, be different in meaning from any of its cognitive synonyms. In this respect, we can establish semantic properties in which cognitive synonyms are identical and differ.” (1986, p. 271) It means that very few cognitive synonymous lexical items can be replaced with one another, whereas the majority of them do not fulfil this criterion.

However, the scale also extends beyond the limit of cognitive synonymity ultimately to shade into non-synonymy. It must be taken into account that there are plesionyms. “Within each region of the scale, the degree of synonymity varies continuously” (Cruse, 1986, p. 270). Furthermore, Cruse points out the so-called dialectal synonyms that express geographical varieties (“autumn-fall”), social dialects (“lavatory- toilet”) or temporal dimension of variation (“wireless- radio”). The second word-group is a consequence of choice, especially for anyone aspiring to move from one social class to another. The third one contains words that show longer-term lexical changes in a language, or slang-words belong here. (1986, p. 283)

One further issue confronting the researcher is that according to his contextual approach, Cruse makes a difference between absolute synonyms, propositional synonyms, near-synonyms), clusters (centred and non-centred clusters).

Absolute synonyms “refer to complete identity of meaning, or they are items which are normal in all contexts” (Cruse, 2004, p. 154). However, Károly describes absolute synonyms “as only synonyms that are based on their special attribute of being interchangeable with each other” (1970, p. 89). He refers to linguists such as Quintilianus who attempts to point out the differences between synonyms, or Gombocz and Zvegincev who simply deny the existence of absolute synonyms. (Károly, 1970, p. 89) In this connection Cruse also states that absolute synonyms are vanishingly rare; do not form a significant feature of natural vocabularies. (Cruse, 2004, p. 154) The reason for this, based on the former basic requirements is, that only one differentiating context is needed to disqualify a pair of words as absolute synonyms. (Cruse, 2004, p. 154) All definitions emphasise the rarity of their occurrence or existence.

The following group Cruse draws attention to is the type of propositional synonyms. “If two lexical items are propositional synonyms, they can be substituted in any expressions with truth-conditional properties without any effect on those properties. They are defined in terms of entailment, which means that two sentences, which differ only in that one has one member of a pair of propositional synonyms where the other has the other member of the pair mutually entailing. For example, “violin” and “fiddle” are propositional synonyms. The difference between these two words depends on certain characteristics of the speaker, that is why “propositional synonyms seem to be commonest in areas of special emotive significance, especially taboo areas, euphemism - dysphemism scale” (2004, p. 155).

The following point to be considered is the type of near-synonyms. According to Cruse “there is a borderline between synonymy and near-synonymy, but the distinction is not obvious” (2004, p. 156). If one takes a look at a list of words that are semantically closer as one goes down the list, and they do not become more synonymous, nor they can contrast, one can talk about near-synonyms. “Characterizing the sorts of difference which do not destroy synonymy is not an easy matter. Permissible differences between near-synonymy must be either minor, or background, or both” (2004, p. 157).

The last type to deal with is the group of clusters. “The name is intended to indicate that the shapeness and complexity of structuring is much less than in other types of field: they are somewhat informal groups” (Cruse, 2004, p. 188). They have two main types: centred and non-centred clusters.

“Centred clusters have a more or less core of one or two items, and a penumbra of more peripheral items. Their characteristics are that they are expressively neutral, stylistically unmarked, that is, they occur in a wider range of registers than any of the other items, and are propositionally super ordinate” (Cruse, 2004, p. 188).

In case of non-centred clusters “the items spread over a spectrum of sense, but there is no super ordinate item. Typically, they display very slight propositional differences, which do not destroy synonymy as long as the items are reasonably close together on the spectrum, but may not be synonymous if they are widely separate” (Cruse, 2004, p. 189).

On the basis of Lyons’s analysis, his classification includes items which are called absolute synonyms, incomplete synonyms and descriptive synonyms. His definition of synonymy is based on meaning, similarly to the previous examples. He states that “if synonymy is defined in the identity of meaning, lexemes can be said to be completely synonymous if and only if they are the same descriptive, expressive and social meanings” (1981, p. 148). They are rare in natural languages. “Lexemes are absolutely synonymous if and only if they have the same distribution and are completely synonymous in all their meanings and in all their contexts of occurrence” (1981, p. 148). Thus they are almost non-existent in natural languages.

Incomplete synonymy is also rare, “the only case of identity of one kind of meaning, but not of others, that is clearly and usefully recognisable as such - lexemes may be descriptively synonymous without having the same expressive or social meaning” (1981, p. 150).

“Descriptive synonymy (commonly called cognitive or referential synonymy) is a term that many semanticists are keen on using instead of synonymy. Examples of descriptive synonyms in English are: father, dad, daddy, etc” (Lyons, 1981, p. 150).

Lyons defines items that are synonymous in terms of sense and reference. According to this “synonyms have the same sense and the same reference” (1997, p. 199). He draws attention to lexemes that are completely synonymous: “The selection of one word rather than another may have no effect upon the message that is transmitted. These intersubstitutable lexemes are completely synonymous” (1997, p. 242). “Lexemes are descriptively synonymous when the selection of one rather than another may change the social or expressive meaning of the utterance, but hold constant its descriptive meaning” (1997, p. 242).

According to Edmond’s and Hirst’s study, which approaches the problem of synonymy from the point of view of computational linguistics, and defines synonymy as a fundamental linguistic phenomena influencing the structure of the lexicon, the following issue is the introduction of absolute synonymy and near-synonyms as plesionyms.

The reason why these linguists studied synonymy focusing on near-synonymy was their aim to develop a new computational model for representing fine-grained meanings of near-synonyms, and the differences between them. They also developed a “lexical-choice process” (2001, p. 105) that can decide which of the several near-synonyms is the most appropriate in a particular context. This research has direct applications in computer translation and text-generation (2001, p. 105). They are evidence that near-synonyms play an important role as a field of research in the area of linguistics.

Absolute synonymy, if it exists at all, is quite rare. (2001, p. 107) “Absolute synonyms would be able to be substituted one for the other in any contexts in which their common sense is denoted with no change to truth value, communicative effect, or meaning” (2001, p. 107). There is a reference to philosophers’, Quine’s and Goodman’s ideas of synonymy: “True synonymy is impossible, because it is impossible to define, and so, perhaps unintentionally, dismiss all other forms of synonymy” (2001, p. 107).

The following points to be considered regarding near-synonyms or plesionyms show that “they are described as words that are in meaning near-synonyms or plesionyms - almost synonyms, but not quite. They are very similar, but not identical in meaning, not fully intersubstitutable, but instead varying in their shades of denotation, connotation, implicature, or register” (2001, p. 107).


The following types of synonyms can be summarised:

Absolute synonyms have the same distribution, are completely synonymous in all their meanings and in all their contexts of occurrence. Their items are interchangeable; they can be substituted with one another. They are relatively rare in a natural language.
Complete synonyms are synonyms that have the same descriptive, expressive and social meaning.
In case of descriptive synonymy the selection of one lexeme rather than another may have no effect on the message being transmitted.
Two lexemes are cognitive synonyms if they fulfil the same truth conditions even though a part of the first utterance has been substituted by something else in the second one. (Partington, 1998, p. 30)
Near-synonyms have similar meaning, but cannot be substituted one for the other. (Cruse, 2004, p. 157)


However, Cruse’s classification distinguishes the following types of synonyms:

Absolute synonyms. (2004, p. 154)
Propositional synonyms. (2004, p. 155)
Near-synonyms. (2004, p. 156)
Clusters. (2004, p. 188)


Another classification of the same linguist is listed below:

Absolute synonyms,
Cognitive synonyms,
Partial absolute synonyms,
Plesionyms. (Cruse, 1986, p. 268)
Dialectal synonyms. (Cruse, 1986, p. 283)


Based on Lyons’s classification of synonyms, the following groups can be distinguished:

Absolute synonyms,
Incomplete synonyms,
Descriptive synonyms, (1981, p. 148)
(Cognitive or referential synonyms) (1981, p. 150)


The division of synonyms into different classes by the same linguist is found below:

Complete synonyms,
Descriptive synonyms. (Lyons, 1997, p. 242)


The last problem to be dealt with in this section is the establishment of the type the lexical items - happen and its synonyms - belong to. They are not absolute synonyms as they are not interchangeable with each other. This means that they cannot be substituted with one another, or if one replaces them, as the examples below suggest, their meanings will change. The reason for this is that they are different in form and style even if they belong to the same word-class. However, they are not complete synonyms either, since they do not have the same descriptive, expressive and social meaning. Due to their features, i.e. their similarity in meaning, and difference in style and form, they can be classified as near-synonyms. This is the reason why they lack the attribute of interchangeability.


As the following example suggests, befall can be replaced with happen to, but not with happen as with happen one have to use “to”, but with befall that is not required.

1. “We prayed that no harm should befall them” (OALDE, 2005. p. 120).

2. “We prayed that no harm should happen to them.”

However, happen cannot be substituted with befall, because the second sentence will sound odd:

3. “Let us see what happens next week!” (OALDCE, 2005, p. 677)

4. “Let us see what befalls next week!”

As illustrated in the previous examples, the meaning of those sentences are similar, but not the same: whereas sentences 1 and 4 necessarily refer to something misfortunate or bad event, sentences 2 and 3 might be regarded as neutral statements. That is why these two lexical items are not interchangeable with each other. To sum up the analysis regarding synonymity, happen and its synonyms can be classified as near-synonyms.

Go back to to the contents page