ArticlePDF Available

No Two Words are Exactly the Same: Measuring Students' Ability to Distinguish Synonyms

Authors:

Abstract

Synonymy can be one of the most extensively investigated lexical relations in language studies. Perhaps this is due to its being problematic for foreign language learners. In such an important concept where there is a sense relationship between words, selecting the correct word is very important in facilitating understanding and conveying the clear and correct meaning of a sentence in such a way that leaves no room for ambiguity or duality of meaning. This study examines Iraqi students' knowledge of synonyms in English and investigates which part of speech synonyms are most challenging to them. To this end, the searcher designed a multiple-choice question test to examine the student's ability to distinguish only correct synonymy that fits each sentence. A Z-Test was used for this purpose. In addition, a Chi-square test was employed to determine the part of speech's synonyms that represent the most difficult to students. The results show that the number of correct answers provided by the participants is broadly low and the students' performance is generally poor when it comes to deal with synonyms. In addition, among the four parts of speech synonyms, the result proved that adjective synonyms are the most difficult part for students compared to the other parts.
No Two Words Are Exactly the Same: Measuring Students' Ability
to Distinguish Synonyms
By:
Asst. Lect. Wafa'a Husain Jabur Al Temeemey
Missan University /College of Education
Email: Iraqi_trans@yahoo.com
Abstract
Synonymy can be one of the most extensively investigated lexical relations in language studies.
This is due to its being problematic for foreign language learners. In such an important concept
where there is a sense relationship between words, selecting the correct word is important in
facilitating understanding and conveying clear and correct meaning of a sentence in such a way that
leaves no room for ambiguity or duality of meaning. This study examines Iraqi students
knowledge of synonyms in English and investigates which part of speech synonyms are
challenging to them. To this end, the researcher designed a multiple-choice question test to
examine the student‟s ability to distinguish the correct synonymy that fits each sentence. A Z-Test
is used for this purpose. In addition, a Chi-square test is employed to determine the synonyms of
the part of speech that represent the most difficult ones to students. The results show that the
number of correct answers provided by the participants is broadly low and the students‟
performance is poor when it comes to deal with synonyms. In addition, among the four parts of
speech synonyms, the result proves that adjective synonyms are the most difficult part for students
in comparison to the other parts.
Key waesds
Synonymy , Students' ability; parts of speech.


 .
1. Introduction
Dealing with language may result in a number of confusing situations; one of which is when a
language gives a number of various terms where some are considered similar in meaning. Such
words that sound different but have a similar meaning are called synonyms (from Ancient
Greek syn meaning „with‟ and onoma meaning „name‟). But can two words be identical in
meaning? The increasing interest of scholarly and scientific approaches that investigate meaning
grant the concepts of sameness and differentness important roles within semantics. The concept of
sameness traditionally refers to synonymy content Fromkin et al. (2003:181) confirm that no two
words can have precisely the same meaning, not even when they are labeled synonyms. Thus,
synonyms can be defined as words carrying approximately the same meaning and whose usage is
context-dependent. Accordingly, one needs to be careful when selecting a word as it might not
convey the same meaning as intended.
Being careful does not suffice when it comes to students, who are taught and exposed to certain
vocabularies which they can use only if they are lucky enough to have their occurrence habits
pointed out. Unfortunately, they are discouraged from using the broader sense of a certain word.
This brings to mind the idea of proper vocabulary usage which relates the correctness of a certain
word to a certain context. This research discusses synonymy in terms of difference or uniqueness.
As Kreidler discuss that at least some of the lexemes defined in most dictionaries are accompanied
by a number of synonyms. As a matter of fact, there are entire dictionaries dedicated solely to
synonyms. Yet, this does not make synonymy any simpler since no two lexemes will ever occur in
the same syntactic environments, and even if they share those environments and predictions can be
made about similarity in the class of referring expressions. They are unlikely to have a similar
suggestion. It would be uneconomical that a language has two or more terms that appear in the very
same contexts, with the very same sense (2002:97).
Examples :
(1) Mr. Ford is their postman.
(2) Mr. Ford is their mailman.
(3) Grace is skinny.
(4) Grace is thin
(5) Grace is slender.
Kreidler goes on explicating his statements with the examples above and discusses that while
postman and mailman give identical predications, as in (1) and (2), they are considered as
differences in dialect, not as a case of synonymy (2002:98).
Storjohann (2010:69) points out that traditional descriptions of synonyms usually revolve
around shared semantic qualities and the extent of semantic overlap between them. They aim at
classifying synonyms rather than showing ways to identify their similarity in contextual meaning
and the cognitive requirements for this. They lack the necessary explanations of how a synonymy is
understood in real language use.
2. What are Synonyms?
Synonymy has long been investigated in linguistics. This yields a good number of definitions
and classifications introduced by linguistic scholars of English. Saeed (2016:61) and Farghal
(1998:116) for instance, define synonyms as words that are different phonologically, but similar
meaning wise. Delahunty and Garvey (2010:248) believe that although synonyms are words with
the same meaning, it is highly unlikely that any two words have the exact same meaning.
Jackson (1988:65) suggests a more liberal vision of synonymy maintaining that words are
synonymous if they share the same meaning. Moreover, synonymy must be defined relative to
context or usage. He thus contends that in order for words to be synonymous, they have to be
interchangeable in all contexts. If the two words are interchangeable in all contexts, they are
definitely synonymous. It is noteworthy to point out that synonyms can be any part of speech (for
example, nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions) as long as both members of the pair
are the same part of speech and, hence, the replaceability. Bussmann (1996:1164) prefers a
description of synonymy as a semantic relation of sameness or (strong) similarity in meaning of
certain linguistic items.
Having ground in semantic theory, Synonymy, has different interpretations depending on
whether the interpretation is considered from the standpoint of lexicology, grammar, or stylistics.
Crystal (2003:164) rejects the idea of complete context-dependence of synonymy and points out to
separate lexemes: “it is usually possible to find some nuance which separates them, or a context in
which one of the lexemes can appear but the other(s) cannot”. To Murphy (2003: 134) synonymy is
more an issue of similarity of properties: What are the shared linguistic properties of the
synonymous words and to what extent are they similar? In another paper, Murphy (2013: 279)
maintains that while synonymy is a metalexical relation (it is knowledge about the language rather
than knowledge of the language), speakers of English are comfortable with the term and its
meaning as well. Furthermore, she claims that synonymy is one of very few metalinguistic terms
used by laypeople in everyday language.
2.1 Assumptions about Synonyms
Grammarians generally assume that there is shortage in synonymy in natural language and that
there is difficulty if not impossibility of having complete synonyms. For Miller and Fellbaum
(1991: 202) similarity of meaning (synonymy) is “the most important lexical relation”which
requires a thorough analysis. The same relation, Riemer claims (2010:169), is usually said to exist
between different expressions that belong to the same language, but genuine lexical synonyms are
very hard to find: once their combinatorial surroundings have been thoroughly explored, proposed
lexical synonyms usually prove the opposite. This concept of “sameness” that underlies every
definition of synonymy, Yule argues (2010:117), does not necessarily reflect “total sameness.”
Where a word fits, its synonym can be odd. For instance, the word answer sounds completely
appropriate in the sentence James gave only one correct answer on the test; the word reply,
however, would be odd. Formality and informality can also be a source of variance in the use of
synonyms. The sentence My father purchased a large automobile is technically the same as My dad
bought a big car, in terms of meaning, with four synonymous alternatives. The only difference is
that the second version feels a lot more casual or informal.
For Lyons (1968: 75) the condition of replacement is a priority when sameness is discussed. He
explains that any word or phrase is accepted as having the same meaning as another word or phrase
if, when it is replaced by the other word in the same context, the resulting utterance will have the
same meaning as that of the first.
Cruse seems to agree with Lyons concerning substitutability and gives kill and murder as an
example. Interestingly, the first can be a synonym of the second, but not vice versa. Strong and
powerful are another example. Cruse also introduces that there are certain synonymous pairs which
are 'more synonymous' than others: settee and sofa are more synonymous than die and kick the
bucket, which in turn are more synonymous than boundary and frontier, breaker and roller or
bramy and shrewd (1986:265).
2.2 Reasons for no Real Synonyms
Due to historical factors, some languages, have a variety of synonyms. Palmer (1981:88)
observes that it has often been suggested that English is specifically rich in synonyms. The reasons
behind that are of historical nature whereby English gained vocabulary from different sources: on
one hand, its vocabulary comes from Anglo-Saxon, on the other hand, French, Latin, and Greek are
considered prominent recourses for English vocabulary. Evan (2009:210) declares that there is a
unique cognitive model profile for every lexical concept. From the perspective of the linguistic
system, this means that these lexical concepts can‟t have real synonymy between them. Fromkin et
al (2003:181) state that it has been said that there is no existence of perfect synonyms; i.e. no two
words ever contain exactly the same meaning. Geeraerts (2010:84) confirms that if synonymy is
described as a relationship between words, total synonymy signifies that:
(a) The range of meanings of synonyms is the same.
(b) There is a mutual substitution between synonymous words in all potential contexts without
changing the whole meaning of the sentence.
For two lexical units to be described as real or absolute synonyms (i.e, would have identical
meanings), Cruse (1986:268) declares that if and only if all their contextual relations are identical.
It would, be without a doubt impractical to prove that two items are absolute synonyms by this
definition since it requires to check their relations in all conceivable contexts, which is theoretically
impossible. Lyons, 1981:148-49 stipulates that two items would be considered as absolute
synonyms if their distribution is the same and they are completely synonymous in all the meanings
they are intended to convey and in all the contexts in which they occur. Cruse (1986: 270) sticks to
his opinion about absolute synonyms by saying that “natural languages abhor absolute synonyms
just as nature abhors a vacuum”.
To make the discussion more structured, Palmer (1981:89) outlines the reasons for no real
synonyms:
1. There are groups of synonyms that come from different dialects of the language. As people
speak different forms of the language, they have different vocabulary terms.
2. As for a problematic situation, evident through the words that are used in different styles, a nasty
smell, for example, might be, in the right setting, “an orrible stink” or “an obnoxious effluvium”
The former is colloquial and the latter is jocularly very “posh”.
3. In some cases, the emotive or evaluative meaning is the only area in which some words may
differ. The remainder of their meaning, such as their “cognitive” meaning stays the same. In
different societies words may vary in their emotive meanings, for instance “liberal” is dealt with as
a good” word in Great Britain, but in some political circles in the United States and in South
Africa it is a “bad” word.
4. The collocation restrictions is another reason since some words occur only in conjunction with
other words. Thus, “addled” occurs with “eggs” or “brain” while “rancid” with “bacon” or “butter”.
This refers to the company that the words keep rather than their meaning ∙
5. It is undeniable that many words have close meaning or that their meanings overlap∙ That is why
there is loose synonymy∙ This is the kind of synonymy that dictionary- makers exploited when they
created dictionaries For instance, the adjective “mature” has the possible synonyms: adult, ripe,
perfect, etc∙ For “govern” it may suggest words like direct, control, determine, require, etc∙ For
each of these words, when searching for the synonyms, a further set for each could be found, of
course, it gets further and further away from the meaning of the original word∙
2.3 Significance of Synonymys
In order to create more comprehensively understanding of synonymy, it would be worthwhile
to view them from a philosophical standpoint and ask the simple question of why synonyms exist.
What is the purpose of having two or more words with the very same meaning? Cruse explains that
language users usually use synonyms for explanation, and proposes the following examples (1986:
267).
(6) He was cashiered, that is to say, dismissed.
(7) This is an ounce, or snow leopard.
Rimer (2010:66) notes that language users attempt to define words by providing synonyms, in
either the source language or in a different language. Therefore, mad and furious can both be
English definitions of angry. He adds that the problem with this strategy is that neither mad nor
furious are synonyms of angry; noting that mad means „insane‟, while angry does not, and furious
in fact means has a „very angry‟ sense. Other synonymous words like cross, livid, irate, enraged,
etc., are also a source of confusion.
Grandy (1992:103) and Glynn and Robinson)2012: 208) note that when synonyms appear to
give certain implications in literature, translators may give formal, functional or ideational
alternatives. This highlights the role of paradigmatic relations (those that involve a linguistic item
that it is contrasted or substitutable, in a certain context, with other similar items, e.g., the student
and the boy in:
(8). The boy came from school.
(9). The student came from school.
The student and the boy occupy the subject slot. They can be replaced because their syntactic
category is the same. Hence, the important paradigmatic relation here is synonymy. The
significance of synonymy is summarized by Newmark (1981:103-104) in five functions:
(a) avoiding repetition
(b) securing cohesion
(c) expanding the text in the interest of redundancy
(d) providing additional comment about the topic
(e) avoiding poor and monotonous style
Obiora (2010:141) emphasizes the significance of synonyms saying that they are crucial in all
languages because they increase the vocabularies of the language. They are crucial for
lexicographers. Synonyms flavor utterances as they enrich the speech events. In addition, they add
dynamism to language, instead of a static one because there are different ways to present the
linguistic situation.
George Lakoff (1987: 5-6), one of the founding fathers of cognitive linguistics, states that
categorization is a serious matter. It is essential and evident in our thought, perception, action and
speech. Whenever we see something , we tend to categorize it, “[…] Without categorization, we
would not be able to function at all, neither physically nor socially or intellectually.”
2.4 Types of Synonyms
It is often suggested that synonymy is a matter of degree. Cruse (1986: 268) supports this
suggestion by saying: “Within the class of synonyms some pairs of items are more synonymous
than others, and this raises the possibility of a scale of synonymity of some kind”. This leads to
four types of synonyms: absolute, cognitive, contextual and plesionymy.
The first type is the true synonymy (what Cruse calls „absolute synonymy‟). It calls for
complete interchangeability in every potential context. For instance, we can find lots of words and
phrases having the same meaning as die (from expire at one end of the register scale, to the
unmentionable idiom involving buckets at the other), but none is equally fitting in all situations.
Hence, „absolute synonyms are vanishingly uncommon and do not form an important feature of
natural vocabularies‟ (Cruse 2004: 155). Murphy (2003:146) agrees with Cruse concerning
absolute synonymy preferring to call it full synonymy and describing it as identical in every sense.
Candidates for full synonymy in natural language tend to be words with relatively limited number
of conventionalized senses. For Lyons (1995: 60), there are three circumstances that lexical items
must attain if they are to be called absolute synonyms:
(a) Their entire meanings must be identical
(b) They must have the same collocational ranges i.e. they must be synonymous in all contexts.
(c) They must contain semantic equivalence on all meaning dimensions, descriptive and non-
descriptive (Ibid).
The second type of synonymy is the cognitive synonymy. Cruise (1986:88) defines cognitive
synonymy as follows:
H is a cognitive synonym of K if
(a) H and K have an identical syntactic environment and
(b) Any grammatical declarative sentence X containing H has equivalent truth conditions to another
sentence Y, which is identical to X except that H is replaced by K.
An example of a pair of cognitive synonyms is fiddle and violin. These are incapable of yielding
sentences with different truth-conditions, for example:
(10) Tom plays the violin very well is entailed by
(11) Tom plays the fiddle very well.
Consequently, cognitive synonyms are a pair of lexical items that contain certain semantic
properties in common, such as sofa and couch which (for the majority of English speakers) share
the sense „a long upholstered seat, often with a back and arms,‟ but just the latter of which has other
senses like „a sofa or bench used as a tool in psychoanalysis‟ or „a priming coat of paint.‟ Together,
these two types of synonymy are classified under the general cover-term logical synonyms.
If words are described as logical synonyms, that is because their lexical or semantic
representations are the same, resulting in their being used in the same ways.
The Contextual Synonymy is the third type of synonymy. This type indicates lexical items
which are cognitive synonyms in certain contexts but not in most contexts. Lyons (1968: 452) calls
this type "context-dependent synonymy". It can be illustrated by discussing the lexical
items buy and get in the following context:
(12) He'll go to the Bakery and get/ buy some bread.
The words get and buy are used interchangeably in this context, so they are cognitive synonyms
only in such a context. However, buy and get are not interchangeable in all contexts. Only get can
be used in the example below:
(13) She will get her son from his class.
Lyons (1981: 149) mentions that "context-restricted synonymy may be
relatively rare, but it certainly exists". For example, broad and wide are not
absolutely synonymous because there are contexts in which only one alternative is normally used
and the substitution of the other might lead to some difference in meaning. So, wide and broad are
not interchangeable in a sentence like:
(14) The black door is three feet wide.
or in a sentence like
(15) That girl has a lovely broad smile .
However, he notes that there are also contexts in which they appear to be completely synonymous
as it is the case in a sentence like:
(16) He have painted a wide/ broad stripe across the wall.
The fourth type of synonyms is the Plesionymys (Near-Synonymy). They include the lexical
items that share some aspects of meaning and differ in others. Cruse (1986: 285) declares
that Plesionyms are different from cognitive synonyms in that the former produce sentences with
different truth conditions. Therefore, if two sentences in a parallel syntactic environment differ only
in concern to plesionyms are not mutually entailing, even if the lexical items are in hyponymous
relation, there may well be unilateral entailment. There is constantly one member of a
plesionymous pair, which is promising to assert, without paradox, while at the same time denying
the other member as in the following example:.
(17) It isn‟t foggy today, it‟s just- misty.
(18) Teresa was not pretty, but in her way, she was quite handsome.
DiMarco et al ( 1993: 117) clarify this type of synonymy more by providing an example (a
statement that does not conform to the truth). The words lie, falsehood, untruth,
fib, and misrepresentation all seem to convey the above mentioned meaning , but a lie is a
deliberate attempt to deceive, that is a flat contradiction of the truth, whereas falsehood is quite
formal, and untruth can be used euphemistically to avoid some of the derogator implications of
some of the other terms. A fib is deliberate but relatively trivial, possibly told to save one‟s own or
another‟s face . Moreover, fib is an informal, childish term, a misrepresentation may be more
indirect, as by misplacement of emphasis, an untruth might be told merely out of ignorance.
2.5 Criteria for Testing Synonyms
Bolinger et al (1968: 123). Asserts that “the measure of synonymy is replaceability” Actually,
many characteristics in common could be found for two lexical items; however, they are not
synonyms except when one of them can be used instead of the other. Palmer (1981: 91) adds that
there are no true synonyms, which would be replaceable in all their environments, and this
„substitution test‟ must be applied to the words which are interchangeable in specific contexts only.
Finegan(2004:192) explains the notion of substitution of synonymy more formally, by saying that
the term X is synonymous with the term Y if every referent of X is a referent of Y and vice versa.
For example, if every movie is a film and every film is a movie, the terms movie and film are
synonymous. The “vice versa” is vital: without it, it would be a definition of hyponymy. Geeraerts
(2010:84) agrees with Finegan by saying two items are synonymous if they interchange for each
other in a particular context while keeping the semantic value of the whole expression. The
substitution must apply in both directions, to rule out hyponymous substitutions, as in the
following example:
(19) Gibson was fined for speeding.
A substitution by Gibson was penalized for speeding is applicable. Conversely, it is difficult to go
from Gibson was penalized for speeding to Gibson was fined for speeding, since the penalization
could take other forms, like the withdrawal of Gibson‟s driving license. Partial synonymy among
words in a context exists if substitutable items differ in some of the meaning aspects. Palmer
(1981:92) suggest another way to test synonyms by looking into the” opposites” i.e. antonyms. He
suggested, for example, to treat the words deep and profound as synonyms, the
opposite superficial is to be contrasted with both deep or profound, but shallow contrasts
with deep and not with profound. The fact that two words seem to have the same antonyms is a
source for treating them as synonyms, but the above-mentioned example demonstrates a case when
words' interchangeability works only in a certain environment.
Methodology
3.1 The Participants
Sixty five of third year students, majoring in English, at The University of Misan, College of
Education, morning studies, participated in the present study. These participants were all native
speakers of Arabic and their mean age is 21. In order to validate the results, the participants who
took part in the current study were selected randomly from the population of students majoring in
English at Misan University. The participants are asked to take a multiple choice question test in
order to measure their ability to distinguish the correct synonymy in English (see Appendix A).
3.2 The Test
Since there is no readymade test that is suitable for the present study, the researcher
constructed a test based on Oxford thesaurus dictionary. The Test is in a form of multiple-choice
questions and consists of 12 items, each three items test synonyms of a single part of speech,
arranged as nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. In addition, in order to ascertain that the
synonyms employed in the current study are used in contemporary speech, the frequency of the
selected synonyms is checked in Oxford Thesaurus Dictionary, specifically the study content part.
To ensure the face and content validity of the test, the researcher exposed it to a jury of experts to
judge whether the test items are suitable or not for the intended purpose. Then, the jurors are asked
to read the test, add, delete or change the items. The jurors agreed upon the suitability of the test
items since none of the included items are deleted.
3.3 Data Analysis
In order to measure the students‟ ability to distinguish the correct synonym, a Z- test is
employed. According to Jackson (2010:102) the Z- test is a parametric inferential statistical test of
the null hypothesis for a single sample where the population variance is known. This test is used to
compare proportions of correct and incorrect answers. Another statistical tool, which is Chi-square
test, is used to compare proportions of correct answers among the four parts of speech . According
to Tavakoli (2013:59), the Chi-square test compares actual or observed frequencies with expected
frequencies in a sample data to decide if the two frequencies differ statistically.
3. Results and Discussion
In an attempt to accomplish the aim of this study, which measures the students' ability to decide
the correct synonym for each point, the data have obtained from the students‟ test has been dealt
with statistically using a Z test. The multiple choice question test consisted of twelve points.
Figure (1) shows that the number of the incorrect answers provided by the participants for all the
test items is more than the correct ones. The number of incorrect answers for item 1 is 42 with
64.4% while the number of the correct answers is 23 with 35.4%. The incorrect answers in item 2
are 58 with 89.2% on the contrary; the correct answers are 7 only with a 10.8%. Item 3 shows 53
incorrect answers with 81.5% and 12 correct answers with 18.5%. The result on item 4 reveals 42
incorrect answers with 64.6% and 23 correct answers with 35.4%. For item 5 the incorrect answers
are 48 with 73.8% versus 17 correct answers with 26.2%. The Proportion of incorrect answers of
item 6 is 45 with 69.2% and 20 correct answers with a 30.8%. Item 7 gets 59 incorrect answers
with 90.8% versus only 6 correct answers with 9.2%. The incorrect answers for item 8 are 48 with
a percentage of 73.8% while the correct answers are 17 with 26.2%. On item 9 figurer (1) shows 45
incorrect answers with 69.2% on the other hand 20 correct answers and 30.8% for the same item.
The incorrect answers provided for item 10 are 47 with 72.3 % whereas the number of the correct
answers are 18 with 27.7%. Item 11 is the only one that shows a close percentage between the
correct and incorrect answers since the incorrect answers are 34 with 52.3% and 31 correct answers
with 47.7%. Last but not least, item 12 reveals 60 incorrect answers which are the highest number
of incorrect answers among all the other items with 92.3% compared to only 5 correct answers with
7.7%. The P-Value for all the items (except item 11) is P<0.001 which means there is a statistically
significant difference in percentages between the correct and incorrect answers. Item 11 is the only
item that the P value of it = P>0.05 indicates there is no statistically significant difference in
percentages.
Figure (1) reveals that the students are not aware of using the relevant synonymy and that reveals
synonyms as a serious problematic area for EFL student since most of the items haven‟t been
answered correctly and the average of the correct answers percentages is lower than that of the
incorrect ones.
Figure ( 1) Proportions of correct answers for test points
As have been mentioned before, the test items occur into four groups, every three items
respectively represent a single part of speech. The first group stands for noun synonyms, the second
group represents verb synonyms, the third one is adjective synonyms, and finally, the fourth group
is adverb synonyms. The answers provided by the tested students have been manipulated
statistically through conducting a Chi-square test in order to determine the part of speech that
seems to be the most challenging for the participants. Figure (2) shows that, the highest number of
correct answers goes for verb synonyms (item4,5, and6) with 60 correct answers and 30.8% while
the incorrect answers are 135 with 69.2% . The adverb synonyms (item 10, 11 and12) reveal
54 correct answers with 27.7% and 141 incorrect answers with 72.8%. Items (1,2, and 3)which
stand for noun synonyms receive 42 correct answers with 21.4 % and 153 incorrect ones
with 78.6% . The adjective synonyms (item 7,8and 9) get the lowest number of correct answers
which are only 32 ones with 16.4%whereas the incorrect answers are 163 with 83.6%. The result of
the Chi-square test shows a P value <0.01 refers to a statistically significant difference in correct
answers among the four parts of speech synonyms. The low number of correct answers as a whole
suggests that students face difficulties when dealing with synonyms and adjective synonyms are the
most difficult type for students according to the above-mentioned percentages.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 2 3 4
Figure (2) Proportions of correct answers for parts of speech
5 Conclusion
Based on the data analysis, it is concluded that synonyms ,as a common linguistic phenomenon,
represent a serious challenging area for Iraqi EFL students. They have difficulty in distinguish
synonyms and use the appropriate word in the correct context, which is considered as an important
skill that students need to develop, not only for scores achievement but for the required precise
communication . Concerning the different parts of speech that synonyms belong to, the results
show that adjective synonyms represent the most difficult set of synonyms for the students. Noun
synonyms come second in the scale of difficulty and followed by the adverb synonyms and finally
the verb synonyms. The synonyms phenomena is a significant sense relation that affects the
linguistic framework of learners, and thus, the researcher recommends further investigations into
the reasons behind the errors committed in using synonyms and search for techniques that help the
learners to be more familiar with them and certain provoke raise their awareness about the fact
that true synonyms which have the same meaning components do not exist and; each word is
unique on its own.
Appendix A
Synonyms Test
Note : 1.Answer all the points, don’t leave any one.
2. Don’t select more than one option for each point.
Q/ Choose the most suitable word to complete the sentence|:
1. What is a traditional marriage …………………..looks like in your culture.
Ceremony ritual rite service
2. Tom is in the sixth ………………..at school.
Class grade year stream
3. You will receive basic …………………in first aid.
Teaching instruction study training
4. Heavy use of pesticide can ….……the environment and people‟s health.
Damage hurt impair harm
5. I fell on ice and …………….my back.
Injured hurt wounded sprain
6. The discussion was ………………in details in his dairy.
Registered recorded documented entered
7. People who can‟t use a computer are said to be computer ……………
Ignorant untrained illiterate uneducated
8. We are all ……………… about the idea.
Eager keen anxious enthusiastic
9. We sat and watched the ……….sunset.
Glorious impressive magnificent spectacular
10. The journey …………….takes one hour.
Often usually normally generally
11. It is ………………. difficult to know where to begin.
Occasionally from time to time sometimes once in a while
12. You should come and see us more …………
A lot frequently habitually often
References
Bolinger, D. and Sears, D. A. (1968) Aspects of Language. NewYork: Harcourt, Brace &
World.
Bussmann, H∙ (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics London:
Routledge∙
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal.D.(2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Delahunty,G and Garvey,J. (2010). The English Language: From Sound to Sense. The
WAC Clearinghouse.
DiMarco, Ch; Hirst, G; and Stede, M (1993).“The Semantic and Stylistic Differentiation of
Synonyms and Near-Synonyms.”AAAI Spring Symposium on Building Lexicons for Machine
Translation , Stanford, CA, March , p.p114121.
Evan, V. (2009). How Words Mean. New York: Oxford University Press.
Farghal, M. (1998).Vocabulary Development and Lexical Relations. Irbid, Jordan: Dar Al-
Hilal for Translation.
Finegan, E∙ (2004). Language its Structure and Use (4th ed∙) Australia: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Fromkin, V∙, Robert R∙, Nina H∙ (2003), An Introduction to Language (7thed∙) Australia:
Thomson Wadsworth∙
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glynn, D and Robinson, J. (2012). Corpus Methods in Cognitive Semantics. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Grandy, R. E. (1992). “Semantic fields, prototypes, and thelexicon.” In Lehrer and Kittay ,
PP.103122.
Jackson , Sh, L. (2010). Statistics: Plain and Simple. (2nd ed) . USA. Wadsworth , Cengage
Learning.
Jackson, H. (1988). Words and their meanings. London, UK: Longman.
Kreidler, Ch .(2002).Introducing English Semantics. New York: Taylor &Francis e-
Library.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What categories reveal about
the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lyons, J. (1995) Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP.
Lyons, J∙ (1981). Language and Linguistic An Introduction Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Miller, G. A., and Fellbaum. C. (1991) Semantic networks of English. In B. Levinand S.
Pinker (eds.), Lexical and conceptual semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.197 229.
Murphy, M. L. (2013). “What we talk about when we talk about synonyms”. International
Journal of Lexicography 26(3), 279-304.
Murphy, M.L.(2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: pergamon.
Obiora, T. (2010) Synonyms in Igbo Language. International Journal of Research in Arts
and Social Sciences. Vol 2.pp135-147.
Oxford Thesaurus Dictionary
Palmer, F∙ (1981). Semantics∙ (2nd ed∙) Britain: Cambridge University Press∙
Rimer, N. (2010). Introducing Semantics. New York. Cambridge University Press.
Saeed, J. (2016). Semantics (4th ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Storjohann, P.(2010). “Synonyms in corpus texts: Conceptualisation and construction” .In
Storjohann, P (ed) Lexical-Semantic Relations: theories and practical perspectives.
Amesterdam John Benjamins B.V. pp69-94.
Tavakoli, H. (2013). A Dictionary of Research Methodology and Statistics in Applied
Linguistics. Rahnama Press.
Yule,G.(2010). The Study of Language .(4th ed). Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Book
Full-text available
‘A dictionary of research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics’ is a reference guide which offers an authoritative and comprehensive overview of key terms and concepts in the areas of research and statistics as concerns the field of applied linguistics. The volume is in-tended as a resource to delineate the meaning and use of various concepts, approaches, methods, designs, techniques, tools, types, and processes of applied linguistics research in an efficient and accessible style. Some entries relating to statistical aspects of research are also used so as to help the researcher in the successful formulation, analysis, and execution of the research design and carry the same towards its logical end. This book makes use of approximately 2000 entries on the key concepts and issues of research with cross references where necessary. Cross-referencing is achieved in several ways. Within the text, there are terms which have their own alphabetical entries and are printed in SMALL CAP-ITAL LETTERS. There are also in-text entries that are defined within the body of the paragraph and are printed in bold letters. Other entries that are related to the term at issue that might be of interest and further investigation are either provided in the main text or listed at the end of each entry under ‘see’ and ‘see also’ respectively. This volume is designed to appeal to undergraduate and graduate students, teachers, lecturers, practitioners, researchers, consultants, and consumers of information across the field of applied linguistics and other related disciplines. I hope that this dictionary succeeds in fulfilling its intent as a resource that can convey essential information about research issues, practices, and procedures across the whole gamut of the applied linguistics. I would very much welcome reactions and comments from readers, especially relating to points where I may have lapsed or strayed from ac-curacy of meaning, consistency of style, etc., in the interests of improving coverage and treatment for future editions.
Article
This article uses corpus evidence to examine uses of the word synonym in two ways. First, it examines whether uses of synonym match common dictionary definitions of the word. This turns up both senses of synonym that are missing from general dictionaries and broadenings from the basic ‘sameness of meaning’ sense represented in most dictionaries. After reviewing user studies that discuss synonym searches, the article turns to the study of a web-derived corpus of text related to searching for synonyms. The corpus gives insight into the types of expressions that people seek synonyms for, the reasons they search for them, and how well thesauruses meet those needs. These are considered with reference to seven electronic thesauruses. The data indicate types of expression for which thesaurus treatment could be improved, including multiword, closed-class, and ‘vulgar’ expressions. Suggestions are made for future directions in electronic thesaurus design and usability research.
Article
This book explores how some word meanings are paradigmatically related to each other, for example, as opposites or synonyms, and how they relate to the mental organization of our vocabularies. Traditional approaches claim that such relationships are part of our lexical knowledge (our "dictionary" of mentally stored words) but Lynne Murphy argues that lexical relationships actually constitute our "metalinguistic" knowledge. The book draws on a century of previous research, including word association experiments, child language, and the use of synonyms and antonyms in text.
Article
Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction is the successor to Sir John Lyons's important study Language, Meaning and Context (1981).While preserving the general structure of the earlier book, the author has substantially expanded its scope to introduce several topics that were not previously discussed, and to take into account developments in linguistic semantics. The resulting work is an invaluable guide to the subject, offering clarifications of its specialised terms and explaining its relationship to formal and philosophical semantics and to contemporary pragmatics. With its clear and accessible style it will appeal to a wide student readership. Sir John Lyons is one of the most important and internationally renowned contributors to the study of linguistics. His many publications include Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (1968) and Semantics (1977).
Article
Incluye bibliografía e índice
Article
Principles of lexical semantics developed in the course of building an on-line lexical database are discussed. The approach is relational rather than componential. The fundamental semantic relation is synonymy, which is required in order to define the lexicalized concepts that words can be used to express. Other semantic relations between these concepts are then described. No single set of semantic relations or organizational structure is adequate for the entire lexicon: nouns, adjectives, and verbs each have their own semantic relations and their own organization determined by the role they must play in the construction of linguistic messages.
  • D Bolinger
  • D A Sears
 Bolinger, D. and Sears, D. A. (1968) Aspects of Language. NewYork: Harcourt, Brace & World.