Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології

Synonymous substitution of key-word (vocabula) gives way to the formation of circumlocutions as the initial form of idioms. Periphrastic descriptions correspond to respective keywords (vocabulae) substituted in the way of designating their object with the indication of other attributes. Thus a semantic shift takes place in the same manner as in a transition from one synonym to another one. In its turn such circumscription doesn’t only substitute a keyword: it expands another keyword simultaneously and develops as the word’s expansion, taboo being a primary impetus for such substitution. It goes then again about partitive negation that becomes the common point both for synonymy and periphrastic description. In this way formulaic circumscriptions come to existence becoming the source of idioms.

Synonyms in its turn build up periphrastic descriptions of the partitive attributes of an object. For example synonymous series were used as the circumlocutions in early Christian poetry as the descriptions of the attributes of an unknown hidden object⁴⁵⁴. This device gives a prompt concerning the way of the formation of circumlocutions from synonymous enumerations of attribute cumulated within a textual segment. Circumscriptions as the initial forms of idioms arise here just as “synonymous circumlocutions” [Апресян, 1974, 221], them both being different sides of the same essence of the heterogeneity of language represented in attributive diversity of the mapped objects. One of the best known samples of periphrastic descriptions taken as synonymous phrases is to be found in the Finnish epics “Calevala” (very highly appreciated by J.R.R. Tolkien)⁴⁵⁵. Synonymous differentiation of particulars correlates here with the formation of circumlocutions describing the very details. It is essential that such phrasal synonyms are here contrasted in adjacent pairs so that the same enunciation becomes represented in different way with different periphrastic devices. In such attachments very different locutions reveal mutuality and become equalized so that synonymy arises as the result of semantic derivation. For example (lines 335-336) Vainemainen after having landed does “kneel” and “rear with the arms” thus making the both gestures the means of expression of the similar contents. To generalize the examples of the kind one can say that synonyms presuppose excess or pleonastic manner of narration as opposed to deficit peculiar for the elliptic manner. Due to such excesses the effect of semantic shift is entailed so that unexpected semantic features are discovered as common traits in different locutions becoming synonyms⁴⁵⁶.

Negation as the synonymous and periphrastic common ground can be regarded also as the foundation of signifying action in general, bearing in mind that each designation denies the thing it designates: while referring to this thing it gives something other instead. Thus the quality of otherness comes into play that presupposes the negation of the designated object. In its turn this quality is entailed with the inherent quality of reflection, namely with reflection’s property of inversion. In the most general sense it goes also about the negation of the identity (extension) principle in logic enabling derivation as the negation of one meaning with another. Synonyms can be said to serve the task of the analysis and differentiation as the means of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

The inner interconnection between synonyms and circumlocutions can be seen in such sample as the circumlocution <to give a lift> ‘to help’ where the noun belongs at the same time to the synonymous row <lift, rise, elevate>. It is the selection that makes up the base for the formation of synonyms and the circumlocutions equally. This selection presumes the specialization of meanings thus promoting the process of semantic differentiation (with the succeeding partial antonymous negations). It the problem of the selection of particular special meaning that lies behind both synonyms and circumlocutions. Here is to be seen also that phrasal synonyms based on partial periphrastic description gives rise for the development of partitive synonyms.

It is not the signified / signifying relation but the convergent / divergent procedures of the diversification and differentiation arising in a reality’s map that is the foundation of homonyms / synonyms’ opposition. It is the partiality that creates the base of this opposition, its aspects being represented in different ways. Both synonyms and homonyms represent a kind of isotopic signs obtained from previous discriminative procedures. In the same way they both can be regarded as semantic supplements. Then the circumscription of an isotope becomes the initial point for the generation of a synonymous series, and the very existence of such isotope gives grounds for synonymous equivalence. It is the semantic indefiniteness of this presumed isotope that enables different opportunities of its descriptions and from here the prerequisite of homonymous split ensues as well. Each multitude of meanings presumes the existence of ambiguity and amphiboly making a gap between different meanings. Thus synonymy / homonymy couple refers to semantic ambiguity (semantic diffusion, indefiniteness) resolved in the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. It is to be stressed that ambiguity & abstraction are here the parallel phenomena. In particular the split into homonyms serves as the means of removing the indefiniteness arising in the abstract attributive space. It is the isolation and separation of partial attributes (as the premise of abstraction) that entails the indefiniteness and diffusion and results in their insufficiency to indicate something concrete. Ambiguity arises as the result of a text’s reduction and compression so that the places of indefiniteness arise. The formation of abstractions acts as an “antidote” to the ambiguity in particular in the differentiation of homonyms.

The partiality as the leading feature of synonymy gives rise for the development of the so called “inexact” synonyms or “almost synonyms” (quasi-synonyms) [Апресян, 1974, 245, 235]. Actually it goes about partitive synonyms that designate separate attributes (properties) of an object or separate particular details in opposite to the entirety. One calls such designations hyponyms in contrast to hypernyms designating entirety that includes such details. This division refers to the subordination whereas the relationship between hyponyms remains indefinite. To describe this relationship M.V. Nikitin had suggested the notion of partonyms (or meronyms) that would denote just the designations of the particulars of the same object⁴⁵⁷. The synonymous features spread over words participating in a given situation, and respectively they cover also the situational or occasional synonyms emerging from such participation. The already cited case of members of a corpse exemplifying the possibility of the equation of meanings demonstrates also partitive synonyms as the rows “of the names for the parts of a body” [Харитончик, Шавель, 2004, 122]. When synonyms are the designations of partial negations and differences, the partitive synonyms can be regarded as the double partiality that appears in textual environment. Each text being coherent, it gives a ready list of partitive synonyms (partonyms) that refer to details.

The partitive (situational) synonymy (partonymy) embraces series of words that concern in this or that respect the situation of a narration. Such word rows are generally known from instructive use where, for instance, exercises include the task of building sentences that would include the previously indicated words describing thus the chosen situation. In this respect the historical changeability of words comes to the first place. Lexical contents can’t be regarded only as that of a taken moment of time. All the meanings of a word that have been disclosed till today can’t in any way exhaust the contents as far as each moment of its historical development can bring new semantic discoveries. It was especially stressed by V. M. Rusanivsky who saw in this historical semantic development the reasons for the inclusion of a word in various synonymous rows⁴⁵⁸. Therefore a new type of relations between lexical units implies the presupposed motivation to be present behind the confronted words that are correlated neither with inclusion nor with partial negation of differential features of usual synonyms. Such motivational ties making the words into question confronted as partitive synonyms coincides with objective-attributive relations that presuppose mediation of the features that these words refer to.

Together with partitive synonymy one can suggest the notion of partitive antonyms that’s of the already discussed partial negation of some features of the signified object. It can be easily found in the situation with “a forgotten name”. Here is a typical dialogue: “- Give me that gadget. - What do you mean? Is it a drill? – Oh, I don’t remember exactly, it seems to be called perforator”. Such correction of name chosen from a pair of synonyms exemplifies the negation. Meanwhile each couple of synonyms implies partial antonymous relation. For instance such relation between the synonyms close and shut is described as follows: “closing is partial shutting and shutting is complete closing… To shut implies more substantial obstructions” [Gandelsman, 1963, 215]. Especially evidently such reciprocity of partial synonymous and antonymous relations is to be found in the names of the parts of body (membra corporis): hands vs. legs, skin vs. intestine are partial synonyms and at the same time they are opposed as the partial negations of their properties. While suggesting this widened concept of antonyms it one could reject the restrictions ensuing from the supposed asymmetry of antonyms⁴⁵⁹ as far as it doesn’t concern partial negation. Indeed still the more obvious asymmetry is observable in regard to synonyms⁴⁶⁰. To sum up, one should add that all synonymous and antonymous relations build up the primary taxonomic order within a text and therefore demonstrate the inner textual codification.

From the viewpoint of descriptive tasks the phenomenon of partitive synonymy represents a very convenient device because it enables the representation of a text’s semantic net in the form of register or enumerative structure. In other words it goes about the opportunity for the transformation of a text into a thesaurus to be resulted in the formation of an array or list of partitive synonymous collocations. Text could be said to describe itself in its latent and potential listing structures of partitive synonyms. A special case of partitive synonymy is represented with a minimal series of the kind that consists of a pair of words related to the situation – the already mentioned bifurcations or hendiadoi. One can cite such samples as word couples horse & rider, bow & arrow, cut & tie, light & far where words of different semantic fields become synonyms within the bordered context. This figure is also regarded as a kind of zeugma that belongs to the class of enumerative structures. In particular it reveals itself in semantic diffusion (ambiguity) in folklore. This phenomenon is attested with partitive synonymous rows where the whole bunches of synonyms emerge⁴⁶¹. In particular the so called inner diffusion is singled out⁴⁶² – for instance, <путь-дорога> (path - way) in epic genres (bylyny) has the synonym of <росстань> (distance), and in wedding or funeral songs of <тропинка, ториночка, лазиночка> (a track), and in spiritual songs it has antonym <бездорожье>, in recruiting songs one encounters <темный лес> (dark wood) as such antonym [Никитина, p. 362-363]. Such a diffuse state of meanings in ancient texts is represented with the mentioned rhetorical figure of hendiadys where inexact, fuzzy synonyms are paired as in <милость и человеколюбие, труд и хождение, пастыри и учители> [Лекомцева]. In cases of such diffusion inherent to partitive synonymy a prominent place is gained for circumlocutions as the means of periphrastic description where just the partitive detailed designation of curiosities plays the leading role. Respectively it goes about synonymy of derivative connotations resulted from partitive designation of separate attributes of object.

It is especially to pay attention to verbs combined in such bifurcations that reinforce the convergent processes involving through completive relations other lexical units. Such is the case, for instance, in W. Blake’s lines “You throw the sand against the wind / And the wind blows it back again” (“Mock on” from The Rossetti Manuscript, 1810): the coupled hendiadys <throw & blow> involves also the substantives that display here their partial synonymous properties. Verbal bifurcations of the kind are to be found in the constructions of taxis. Here is also is to be found the reverse case where verbs become partitive derivative synonyms due to their relations to the same name as in the lines of A. Block: «Но синей и синее полночь мерцала / Тая, млея, сгорая полношумной весной» (“Legend” from “The Town”). The four verbs united round the “midnight” display occasional similarity of their derivative meanings.

In its turn this derivative synonymy creates especially favorable opportunities for periphrastic transformations and becomes one of its principal devices. To what scope it grows in some styles one can see at the example of the first (introductory) paragraph of Walter Scott’s “Rob Roy” where there are at least seven bifurcations of coupled synonyms at the space of three compound sentences⁴⁶³. All they can be regarded as the periphrastic substitutions for the other ideas. In the cited passage it is obvious that “hazards and difficulties” may refer to “perturbations” and be represented respectively as its circumscription; “gratitude and veneration” render the idea of “piety”, “government and manner” can be represented with “conduct” or “behavior”, “interesting and attractive” mean also “valuable”, “risk and labor” imply “examination”, “pleasure and pain” can be generalized as “passion”. All it attests the periphrastic destination of the discussed device as the product of the synonymous consequences of derivative connotations. It is also to notice that such minimal couples of synonyms due to their periphrastic properties always imply the existence of the third so that actually the triads arise. Subsequently the existence of a pair of synonyms presupposes the triple form of reference that includes together with the explicit nominations also their periphrastic implication.

To reveal the multidimensionality of synonymous rows spreading over derivative meanings of a word one needs to investigate the lexical attraction (and repulsion) of a word⁴⁶⁴. In particular such sample as <знати - відати> can easily acquire an etymological explanation: one encounters here primary Indo-European confrontation that is still preserved in German (kennen - wissen), but in English the root is already reduced only to wit with its principal meaning of “ability to joke”. Something similar is to be found in the Ukrainian proverbial expression <баньки витріщити> (‘to gape at something, to peer’, literally ‘to protrude eyes’) where a special synonym for Indo-European око is used: this synonym has a humiliating connotation and is derived from a metonymically used root borrowed from Lat. balneum to denote objects of a rounded shape (in a similar way Russ. глаз, is cognate to Pol. głaz “stone”). Usually such stylistically differed and contrasted synonymous pairs of etymologically heterogeneous lexemes can become comparable to etymological doublets as their counterpart.

In a way all the attributes of an object may be regarded as partitive synonyms (and ultimately all lexical units as the partitive designations of the All too). In this case the task of differentiation that they perform in designating gets a clear outlook. Accordingly it goes about reciprocal partial negations (generalized to a certain degree in the extreme and ultimate case of antonyms) that determine the semantic relations between synonyms. Synonyms can be said to correspond to partially negative judgments. They are united as the members of the same set of designation due to the existence of this common object and respective “joint reference” («совместная референция») [Алефиренко, 18] to this object. Ultimately one can presuppose the entire universe instead of separate “things” to become the common object of joint reference of lexical units becoming synonyms.

The differentiation entailed with homonyms is of another nature. There are no common objects and respectively no common reference that would unite them. Nevertheless there remains the same attributive space that they participate within. This purely attributive reference is obvious in homonyms disclosed due to different word combinations. Of course the verb <go> in “a man goes (along a road)” and in “the clock goes (and does need repairing)” doesn’t demonstrate the case of homonyms: it is direct meaning in the first case and metaphor (based upon the resemblance obtained from the latent comparison) in the second case. Anyhow the verb in both cases behaves as a pair of homonyms as far as the cases are to be referred to different rows of partitive situational synonyms. Therefore such verbs can be by analogy called partitive homonyms. When polysemy is transformed into homonymy in such cases a set of loosened and separated partial attributes appears. It is essential that here the partiality provides conditions for discernibleness of such partial features so that it is due to textual horizon that such effects get the conditions for existence. Thus textually conditioned compatibility and the respective discernibleness imply the selection of homonyms. When polysemy retains the objective motivation of semantic transition the homonyms as the result of divergence loose it. The retained vestiges of implicit explanation don’t prevent perfectly autonomous use of derived diverged meanings that are taken as the result and abstracted from the mediating motivation. Moreover such vestiges can turn out to become imaginary or auxiliary ones in the manner of vulgar etymology or of the Chinese rhyming series where different characters are united due to secondary and retrospective connections that have nothing to do with real etymology.

In particular such abstract attributive relations without objects of reference build the conditions that are to be traces in etymological lineage. Caused with the lack of evidences as the consequence of diachronic gaps such absence of definite and known objects that would motivate the transition between different meanings contributes essentially to the randomization of semantic space increasing its chaos. For instance German <Geist> ‘spirit’ and Ukrainian <жах> ‘awe’ belong to the same etymological nest having evidently distinct objects of reference. The same concerns German <satt> ‘satiated’ and English <sad> or German <Ahle> ‘awl’ and Ukrainian <латка> ‘patch’. In these cases old polysemy is seen to be replaced with specialized autonomous meanings referring to different objects in spite of the retention of the relics of motivational contents. The role of the division of former polysemy into a row of homonyms in diachronic scope can be regarded as the etymological regularity⁴⁶⁵. It is