In Unit 10 we said that the meaning of a word is not determined solely by its reference to the real world. We distinguished reference from sense, and saw that the sense of a word arises out of its relations with other words; both those with which it has a connection as an isolated item, and those with which it co-occurs in text. This Unit explores these relationships in more detail.
ACTIVITY 1
Consider the words listed below. Using whatever reference work you find helpful,
(an ordinary desk dictionary should suffice) rearrange them into pairs or groups
as follows:
a. words which have the same meaning
b. words which have opposite meanings
c. words of which it can be said: 'a (word A) is a type of (word B)'
List any words you cannot deal with under these headings separately.
male, female, adult, juvenile, young, old, immature, black, brown, white,
antelope, antler, bear, buck, deer, eland, elk, giraffe, gnu, horn, moose,
okapi, ruminant, tapir, wildebeest.
Turn to Comments on Activities
We are all able to put words as isolated items into groups which have something in common. This capacity is one which verbal intelligence tests for quite young children exploit. For example:
Underline the word which does not mean the same as the others:
fast, frequent, rapid, speedy, swift
The child who is able to underline frequent has treated the remaining words as being approximate synonyms. Whether fast and swift really are synonyms or not is not the issue. The words are extracted from any normal communicative context, but have an artificial context created for purposes of testing. In this context fast and swift are closer in meaning than frequent is with any of the other words. Whether it is a valid test of a child's vocabulary or intelligence is also another matter, which we will not go into here. The point is that we do all categorise words in this way.
But what does it mean to say that one word means the same as another, or the opposite of it? The ability to categorise noted above is based on our exposure to those words in more normal communicative contexts. Our experience of many instances of use of a word tells us, for example, that big and large mean roughly the same thing, that big and small mean roughly the opposite, that bird, hawk and kestrel do not mean the same thing but are connected in a way which is much closer than, say, bird, mouse and wasp. To discuss this knowledge which we have about words, linguists recognise three basic categories of lexical relation: SYNONYMY, ANTONYMY and HYPONYMY.
The usual definition of synonymy is not that two words 'mean the same', but that they can be substituted one for the other in a sentence without the meaning of the sentence changing. Another way of putting this is that for two sentences to be synonymous, they must entail each other. That is, if one is true, then the other is also true, and vice versa. Consider 1 and 2 below. For them to be synonymous, it must be the case that if 1 is true, then 2 is also true, and if 2 is true, 1 is also true. Since this seems to be the case, we can say they are synonymous. And since the only difference between them is between big and large, it follows that these words too are synonymous, at least here.
1. John's a big man.
2. John's a large man.
This is a fairly narrow definition of synonymy, being restricted to particular instances. It certainly does not claim that big and large are always and everywhere substitutable. When we say, casually, that big and large are synonyms, what we are really saying is that they can very often be substituted without changing the meaning of the sentence, but not always. Their different patterns of collocation are sufficient to show that they are not always substitutable. 3 and 4 are not equally likely to occur - in fact 4 seems most unlikely. 5 and 6 are both quite possible, but may mean quite different things. So when we say `substitutable', we mean substitutable not only in a sentence, but also in the context in which the sentence is used.
3. Don't be a big baby.
4. ?Don't be a large baby.
5. He's a big baby.
6. He's a large baby.
Big and large are common words with a very varied collocation potential. It might be thought that it would be easier to find two absolutely synonymous words among less common or more technical vocabulary. However, even here there is usually not total substitutability since the context will intervene. Take speed and velocity. They undoubtedly refer to the same concept. But they tend to occur in different registers and genres. Some linguists would argue that these differences should not prevent us from referring to such items as synonymous since the propositional content is not changed by the change in register, only the non-propositional flavour of the item.
The fact that it is difficult to find two words which are completely interchangeable should not surprise us. Words can be thought of as filling a 'semantic space'. If the space were not there, we would have no need of a word to fill it. Correspondingly, the fact that the word is there shows that the semantic space must also be there. The history of English vocabulary is full of examples in which words have evolved semantically to occupy a different space. Even in cases where at first sight we have found absolutely interchangeable items, unexpected things can happen. The word husband and the expression married man might seem to be interchangeable, since the latter defines the former. Any dictionary will confirm this. But look what happens when we embed the two in the same matrix sentence. While 7 and 8 are unproblematically synonymous, if you try replacing husband by married man in 9, you get a very surprising result, as far as propositional content is concerned anyway.
7. A husband can deduct the travel expenses of his wife who accompanies him on a business trip
8. A married man can deduct the travel expenses etc. etc.
9. "What do you want more than anything else, Judy?"
"Children," she replied unhesitatingly.
"For that you need a man. And while you're at it, it's best if the man's a husband."
McCarthy (1990:17) gives a useful list of ways in which two words might not be truly synonymous, despite their apparent similarity in meaning.
Oppositeness of meaning is a tricky concept to define. We have already said that the virtual uniqueness of meaning of every word is attributable to its occupation of a particular semantic space. So it can be said of almost any two words that they are 'not the same' in meaning. But 'not the same' clearly does not mean 'opposite' (one could add that opposite and not the same are not synonymous...!) True oppositeness is best found in what are sometimes called binary or complementary antonyms. To use one of the terms automatically entails the denial of the other, e.g. alive and dead. Either something is alive, or it is dead; there is no half-way point. These pairs are not all that common in the language, and even where they do exist, from a technical point of view, it is interesting that speakers often seek to undermine the complementarity with expressions like more dead than alive, or exchanges like: Q: 'Is he married or single?' A: 'Well, sort of married.'
Carter (1987:19) sets out the various other ways in which words can be considered semantic opposites. The relationship between married and single is not the same relationship as exists between husband and wife. The latter pairing implies reciprocity: where there is one, there must also be the other. This notion of reciprocity may go some of the way towards explaining the oddity of replacing husband by married man in sentence 9 above. Married man is not necessarily reciprocal with wife, or with any other relevant female referent, which affects our interpretation of 9.
Incompatibility is also discussed by Carter as a sort of antonymy. Where a word belongs to a recognizable, and probably closed, set, such as the days of the week, it can be argued that choosing it necessarily excludes the others. So Monday excludes Tuesday, and rose excludes chrysanthemum. This extends the concept of oppositeness quite considerably. Is north the opposite of south, and also of east? Providing we are clear about the sort of relationship we mean, it does not matter which label we give it, but "antonymy" is clearly rather vague as a label.
This can be shown even more clearly with gradable words, such as those dealing with temperature or size. For everyday purposes, hot is the opposite of cold. But as many others have noted, in German, hot water is warmes Wasser, and a German tourist in Britain who asks for warm water will probably get water that is unexpectedly tepid. Although this example makes use of two languages, relationships between gradable words are very complex just within English. One peculiarity is the negation of such words. If I say that something is not bad, I don't necessarily imply that it is good. On the other hand, something which is not good, probably is pretty bad.
Despite the problems involved in defining antonymy, it still has psychological reality for us, and is certainly a productive source of stylistic variation in creative writing.
Hyponymy is a hierarchical relationship in which we can say: X is a type of Y. A kestrel is a type of hawk, and a hawk is a type of bird. The less general item is a hyponym of the more general item, so kestrel is a hyponym of hawk. If we want to say what hawk is in relation to kestrel, we use the term superordinate. Since there are several words which are hyponyms of hawk, e.g. kestrel, sparrowhawk, merlin etc., these words are co-hyponyms of hawk.
Example 10 is probably contradictory:
10. Q: Is that a dog?
A: No, it's not a dog, but it is an alsatian.
whereas 11 is perfectly interpretable:
11. Q: Is that an alsatian?
A: No, it's not an alsatian, but it is a dog.
It is for this reason that Carter defines hyponymy as 'asymmetrical synonymy'.
Although synonymy, antonymy and hyponymy are useful categories of lexical relation, they only scratch at the surface of the complexities of vocabulary. The brain establishes dozens of levels of word classification, which cross-cut, but which are nonetheless separately accessible. An analogy with computer word-processing packages may help to explain this. If I ask you to name three tropical fruits, you will not name apples. You either go to the lexical file in your brain marked "tropical fruits", or, if you do not think you have such a file, you go to the somewhat larger file named "fruits" and rummage in there until you have in effect set up a smaller file labelled "tropical". For many readers of this Unit, this kind of rummaging will have been necessary in carrying out Activity 1. Not being sure which file some of the words were in, or ought to be in, or indeed how many files you needed, probably sent you to a dictionary for assistance. These files, once established, may or may not remain "active". In a few weeks you may no longer know or care whether okapi and antelope can be filed together or not, and if so under which superordinate label. On the other hand you probably already have a permanent file which includes deer and antler. These two words are not covered by any of the categories mentioned earlier, but the whole/part relationship does have a name: 'meronymy'. Antler is a meronym of deer. Also in this file may be words such as horn, skin, meat and so on. Then you may also have deer stored in a file which contains items such as hunt and hound. These words could be said to belong to the 'semantic field' of hunting. The point is that any word can be part of a set of words which go together in some way, and these sets nest inside each other and are fuzzy round the edges. Yet they do exist psychologically. By contrast, it is highly unlikely that that you have any sort of semantic file containing the words deer and semantic. They are unlikely to form part of the same lexical set.
|
ACTIVITY 2 In the following famous opening to A Tale Of Two Cities, Dickens plays with lexical relations over several lines. Can you allocate the instances to the various categories set up by Carter (1987 Ch. 1) and McCarthy (1990 Ch 2)? Are there words which seem to belong to lexical sets other than those covered by these categories? It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. There was a king with a large jaw, and a queen with a plain face, on the throne of England; there were a king with a large jaw, and a queen with a fair face, on the throne of France. In both countries it was clearer than crystal to the lords of the State preserves of loaves and fishes, that things in general were settled for ever. |
ACTIVITY 3
This activity invites you to develop the work done in Activity 2, by comparing two passages in terms of the way the choice of vocabulary contributes to style and authorial purpose. Although this is a linguistic exercise, the dividing line between linguistic and literary analysis of text is by no means sharp. If you do want to make literary or evaluative judgements about either text though, you should try to support them by reference to linguistically based observation. The focus of the activity is vocabulary, not grammar.
(ACTIVITY 3 - continued) Passage A Marriage is not the gamble we sometimes say it is. Over its course we have some control. Our choice of spouse is mostly intelligent as well as romantic. For who is foolhardy in an endeavour whose reputation is so fearful? My marriage to Ingrid pursued a course which surprised neither of us. As loving as we could have expected, as careful as our natures seemed to demand. No. Children are the great gamble. From the moment they are born, our helplessness increases. Instead of being ours to mould and shape after our best knowledge and endeavour, they are themselves. From birth they are the centre of our lives, and the dangerous edge of existence. Their health, a random good fortune at best, is often regarded by us as the result of breeding and care. Their illnesses, when serious, destroy happiness. When they recover, we live for years with the knowledge of what their death could mean to us. The arbitrary nature of our passion for children, who reveal so little of themselves during their short stay with us, is for many life's great romance. But whereas we may choose the object of our romantic love, we do not choose the child who will be our son or daughter. Passage B Marriage legally or culturally sanctioned union of one man and one woman (monogamy); one man and two or more women (polygamy); one woman and two or more men (polyandry). The basis of marriage varies considerably in different societies (romantic love in the West; arranged marriage in some other societies), but most marriage ceremonies, contracts or customs involve a set of rights or duties, such as care and protection, and there is generally an expectation that children will be born of the union to continue the family line, and maintain the family property. In different cultures and communities there are various conventions and laws which limit the choice of a marriage partner. Restrictive factors include: age limits, below which no marriage is valid; degrees of consanguinity or other special relationships within which marriage is either forbidden or enjoined; economic factors such as ability to pay dowry; rank, caste, or religious differences or expectations; medical requirements, such as the blood tests of some US states; the necessity of obtaining parental, family or community consent; the negotiations of a marriage broker in some cultures, as in Japan or formerly among Jewish communities; colour - for example, marriage was illegal till 1985 between `European' and `non-European' people in South Africa, until 1967 was illegal between white and black people in some southern US states, and illegal between white and Asian people in some western states. Turn to Comments on Activities. |
Reading:
Carter, R. 1987. Vocabulary. Applied Linguistic Perspectives. Unwin Hyman
McCarthy, M. 1990. Vocabulary. OUP
Both these books are written for teachers, mainly teachers of English as a Foreign Language. But they are useful for undergraduates, too. McCarthy is slightly easier.
