Semantic Classifications

Semantic Classification of words

Modern English has a very extensive vocabulary; the number of words according to the dictionary data is no less than 400 000. And these words can be classified in various ways. We are concerned only with the semantic classification of words.

Classification into monosemantic and polysemantic words is based on the number of meanings the word possesses. More detailed semantic classification is generally based on the semantic similarity (or polarity) of words or their component morphemes.

Semantic Similarity of Morphemes

Lexical groups composed of words with identical root morphemes are called word-families or word-clusters.

e.g. lead, leader, leadership

dark, darken, darkness

Members of word-family belong as a rule to different parts of speech and they are joined only by the identity of root-morphemes. However there are cases, when the sound-form of root-morphemes may be different.

e.g. sun, sunny -  solar

mouth – oral, orally; brother -  fraternal

But their semantic similarity makes it possible to include them in a word-family. In such word-families we usually encounter etymologically different words.

e.g. brother and mouth (Germanic origin)

fraternal and oral (Latin)

Semantic and phonemic identity of affixational morphemes can be observed in the lexical groups of the type “darkness, cleverness, calmness”. In such word-groups as “teacher, doctor, musician etc.” only semantic similarity of derivational affixes is observed. (Lexical groups denoting the doer of the action, actions-movement, transformation etc.).

Semantic Similarity of Words

Semantic Similarity of Words may be observed in the similarity of their denotational or connotational meaning. Similarity or polarity of the denotational component of lexical meaning is found in lexical groups of synonyms and antonyms. Similarity or polarity of the connotational components serves as the basis for stylistic stratification of vocabulary units.

Synonymy and antonymy seem to overlap in a number of cases. When we speak of words “daddy” and “parent” as synonyms we do so because of the similarity of their denotational meaning and polarity of their stylistic reference.

F. Nida considers that no morphemes or combinations of morphemes are identical in meaning, i.e. there are no real synonyms (forms which have identical meaning). R. Jacobson’s view is that in any languages instances may occur where two words are semantically nearly coinciding with each other, while differing in their phonemic constitution. As a rule a distinctive feature serves to differentiate words, which are semantically distinct.

A.Hill: “Synonyms are the most probable substitutes in any given situation but in one situation only, which is an important limitation. The attempt to set up perfect synonyms fails because the substitution is studied without reference to particular situations.”

Similarity of Denotational Meaning

The most debatable problem is the definition of synonyms. Traditionally they are described as words different in sound-form but identical or similar in meaning. But this definition has been criticized on many points:

1. It seems impossible to speak of identical meaning of words as such, as this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words (to look at smb, to look pale).
2. It seems impossible to speak of identity or similarity of lexical meaning as a whole as it’s only the denotational component that may be described as identical or similar. If we take e.g. to die, to pass away, to kick the bucket or begin, commence we see that only denotational component is similar, but connotational component (stylistic reference) is entirely different.                                                                

So only the similarity of denotational meaning makes them synonymous.

1. Identity of meaning is very rare even among monosemantic words, cases of complete synonyms are very few (mainly terms)

e.g. spirant (and fricative) in phonetics.

Thus the definition of synonyms is: words different in sound-form but similar in their denotational meaning.

    Similarity of denotational meaning of all members of the synonymic sets is combined with a certain difference in the meaning of each member. It follows that relationship of synonymity implies certain differences in the denotational meaning of synonyms.

  R. Jacobson: “A few words should be said about the traditional classification of vocabulary units into ideographic and stylistic synonyms. It proceeds from the assumption that synonyms may differ either in the denotational meaning (ideographic synonyms) or the connotational meaning (stylistic synonyms). But this assumption cannot be accepted as synonymous words always differ in their denotational component irrespective of the identity or difference of stylistic reference.

   Therefore it would be more consistent to subdivide synonymous words into purely ideographic (denotational) and ideographic-stylistic synonyms.

e.g. 1) seem, appear, look, (seem beautiful, looks pale, appeared crazy) -only ideographic;

       2)  see, behold (bookish)

Criteria of Synonymity

It should be pointed out that in both definitions there is no objective criterion of similarity of meaning; judgement as to semantic similarity is based on the linguistic intuition of the analyst.

It is sometimes argued that the meaning of two words is identical if they can denote the same referent.

e.g. Washington – is the capital of the USA.

Washington and “ capital of the USA” have the same referent, but we can’t say they are synonyms.

Recently some new points have been introduced. Similarity of meaning implies that the words are synonymous if either of them can occur in the same context. Another definition (also from contextual approach) synonyms are words which can replace each other in any given context without the slightest alteration either in denotational or connotational meaning. But this approach also invites criticism, as the same word in different contexts are not synonymous.