Set expressions consisting of a verb with a postpositive are widely used in present-day English and may be called one of its characteristic features. l Many verbal synonymic groups contain such combinations as one of their elements. A few examples will illustrate this statement: to choose :: to pick out; to abandon :: to give up; to continue :: to go on; to enter :: to come in; to lift :: to pick up; to postpone :: to put off; to quarrel :: to fall out; to return :: to bring back. E.g. By the way, Toby has quite given up the idea of doing those animal cartoons. (PLOMER)

     The vitality of these expressions is proved by the fact that they really supply material for further word-formation. Very many compound nouns denoting abstract notions, persons and events are correlated with them, also giving ways of expressing notions hitherto named by somewhat lengthy borrowed terms. There are, for instance, such synonymic pairs as arrangement :: layout; conscription :: call-up; precipitation :: fall-out; regeneration :: feedback; reproduction :: playback; resistance :: fight-back; treachery :: sell-out.

     An even more frequent type of new formations is that in which a noun with a verbal stem is combined with a verb of generic meaning (have, give, take, get, make] into a set expression which differs from the simple verb in aspect or emphasis: to laugh:: to give a laugh; to sigh:: lo give a sigh; to walk:: to take a walk; to smoke:: to have a smoke; to love:: to fall in love. E.g. now we can all have a good read with our coffee. (SIMPSON)⁷

     N. N. Amosova stresses the patterned character of the phrases in question, the regularity of connection between the structure of the phrase and the resulting semantic effect. She also points out that there may be cases when phrases of this pattern have undergone a shift of meaning and turned into phraseological units quite different in meaning from, and not synonymical with, the verbs of the same root. This is the case with to give a lift, to give somebody quite a turn, etc.

     Quite frequently synonyms, mostly stylistically, hut sometimes ideographic as well, are due to shortening, e. g. memorandum :: memo; vegetables :: vegs; margarine :: merge; microphone :: mike; popular (song] :: pop (song).

     One should not overlook the fact that conversion may also be a source of synonymy; it accounts for such pairs as commandment:: ceriman, laughter :: laugh. The problem in this connection is whether such cases should be regarded as synonyms or as lexical variants of one arid the same word. It seems more logical to consider them, as lexical variants. Cf. also cases of different affixation: anxiety :: anxiousness, effectively ;: effectiveness, and loss of affixes: amongst :; among or await :: wait.

     Essence of synonymy, synonymous relations between words yore attracted and still attracts the attention of linguists, who develop the problems of semasiology, since decision of the problems of synonymy is closely connected with antonym and polysemy and the studying of synonyms is important not only for semasiology, but as well as for lexicography, literature studying, methodic of teaching the English language, etc.

     In spite of the existence of relatively large numbers of the studies, denoted to the opening of the different sides to synonymy, hitherto there is no a unity glance in respect to determinations of the synonyms, methods of their study, principles of the separation and categorizations of the synonyms, and borders of the synonymous row.

     The majority of scholars share the opinion that synonymy presents by itself the “microcircuit” of the language, which is characterized by their own relations and that it falls into quality of the component part in lexical system of the language as a whole.

     As it concerns the determinations of synonymy, there is no existence of the unity among the scholars’ opinions: one researchers come from the generality of the meaning of synonyms, while the others - from the correlation of semantic and subject - logical begin in a word, while the thirds try to prove that synonyms are defined on the base of generality of the structured model of the use and alike combinability of the words.

     Such kind of analysis of these determinations happens to in the works of Russian philologists V.A. Pautynskaya, “Review of the literature on question of the synonymy”, V.A. Zvegintsev “Semasiology”, “Questions to theories and histories of the language”, “Theoretical and applied linguistics” and V.T. Valium “About determinations of the synonymy and their synonymy in modern English. 
1.4. Semantic and functional relationship in synonyms

     This chapter is denoted to the analysis of semantic and functional relationships and words and their synonymy in modern English. V.G. Vilyuman, in detail analyzing all signs of synonymy, comes to conclusion that necessary and sufficient for confession of the words as the synonymical ones features are general for the analyzed words semantic and functional signs, but, however, the problem of synonymy according to Volume’s opinion is being lead to the discovering of resemblances and differences of the meanings and functions of the words on the base of their combinability. This idea might be truly supported by the investigations of other linguists such as A.V.Smirnitsky and G.Khidekel.

     We must also notion here that the understanding of the essence of the synonymous relations is closely connected with the understanding of the essence and structures of the semantic structure of a word. We know different ways of interpretations of the semantic structure of the word in theories of lexicology. Let us give some of these suggestions below.

     V.G. Viluman defines the semantic structure of the word as a set of semantic signs, which are revealed at the determination of semantic adjacency of the synonymical words. According to his opinion, one of the possible ways of the determination of semantic adequacy of the words is offered by the analysis of the description of meanings for these words in explanatory dictionaries. Two words are considered as semantically correspondent to each other if their vocabulary meaning is explained one through another. The relationship between two words can also be direct and mediated. For example, having studied the semantic relationship between verbs which are united by the semantic meaning of “to look”, V.G. Vilyuman builds the matrix of the semantic structures of the synonymical verbs analyzed. The matrix presentation of the semantic structures serves not only as a demonstrative depiction of the material, but it also creates the picture a unit systems in a language - we mean synonymy, since the semantic structure of each word in the matrix is represented by itself as a ranked ensemble of importance’s interconnected and opposed to each other.

     The deep penetration to the essence of language phenomena, their nature and laws of the development is promoted by the collation of these phenomena in two and more languages.

     The problems of the comparative study of lexicon in different languages have found their reflected images in the works of such kind famous lexicologists as A.V. Scherba, R.A. Budagov, V.G. Gak, B.A. Uspensky, V.N. Yartseva, Sh. Balley, S. Uliman, U. Veinrich, A.V.Smirnitsky and the others.⁸

     Many linguists consider as expedient to match the small systems between themselves, the members of which are semantically bound between itself. This enables us to define the lexical elements of each system by means of investigation, and to note the moments of the coincidences between them, as well as to explain why the semantic sidebars of each word or words, which have the alike subject reference in compared languages, are turned out to be different.

     The comparative studies also serve as the base for typological investigations, the production of typological universals, since, as a result of such correspondences, are identically and non-identically fixed with the determined standpoint elements.

     For example, the Russian linguist M.M. Makovskiy in his article “Typology of Lexical-Semantic Systems” emphasizes that the typological analysis of lexicon must not only be reduced to the external, mostly available establishments , which are often available for observation, but often casual in coincidences in their lexical and semantically meanings. In the course of studies we must necessary realize, if there general structured lexical-semantic models, common for many languages (Russian and Uzbek are included) exist, and if yes, what kind of peculiarities and laws are observed for this.

     Thereby, we see that the problem of synonymy was studied and is being studied, but, regrettably, the majority of the studies in this area belong to the foreign lexicologists, especially by the Russian ones. In Uzbekistan the studding of the problem of synonymy is investigated by a relatively small quantity of lexicologists, except for Prof. Buranov and Prof. Muminov.

     The following chapter of my qualification work studies the verbal synonymy, which is one of the most fewly studied problems concerned with linguistics at all and the problems of synonymy in particular.

 

      1.5. Interchangeable character of words and their synonymy

     Considering the semantic generality of the lexical units and their partial interchangeability as the features of synonyms, that is to say, the compatibility of words in one contextual meaning and the inconsistency in others, we hereunder may confirm that two words interchangeable in all contexts are not synonyms, because when two words are used with no difference, there is no a problem of the choice between them

     Now let us analyze this problem from the viewpoint of the Russian scholar S. Ulman. Citing on Aristotel, S. Uliman emphasizes that synonymy of the words - a stylistic category and the style always expects the choice between two words, at least, which are compatible or incompatible. Hence it follows that where there are no grounds for choice between two or more words, there are no grounds for speaking about synonymy of these words.

     Amongst the judgments about correlation of meanings in synonymy and their interchangeable character, there are such, which reduce the synonymy to unlimited interchange. For instance, A. Cherch writes that if two names (the question is about the names presented as combinations of the words) are synonyms (that is they have one and the same content), it is always possible for a linguist to change one of them into another. However, example, which A. Cherch gives on this cause, shows that the interchangeable character of synonyms is limited. This example looks as follows:

     e.g. Sir Valiter Scott is the author of “Veverley”

     In this example we can see that though Sir Walter Scott is not a Veverley by its semantic content but Sir Walter Scott is Sir Walter Scott, though when we say a word “Veverley” we may mention Walter Scott as the author of the former.

     In the linguistic literature on synonymy we can read that the interchangeable character of lexical units is considered as the effect to generalities of their lexical and grammatical importance. For support of this idea we can take the works of A.L. Demidova, who, concerning with synonymical pretext, comes to conclusion that some synonyms differ in their semantically meaning and cannot be interchanged to each other, while the others are of stylistic shade and can be interchanged into each other. I agree with A.L. Demidova’s idea is that there also exists the third group of synonyms, which combines in itself the features of the first two previous groups. And, consequently, such synonyms are interchangeable in one case and not interchangeable in another.

     According to concepts accepted by me, the synonymy exists only under the two above mentioned conditions of semantic generality, while the words which correspond only to one of these conditions, are not of synonymic character. 
1.6. Combinability of synonyms

     The verbs which fall into one synonymous row, can possess the miscellaneous character of composing restrictions. The composing restrictions can be of lexical, semantic or referring character.

     The lexical restriction reveals in the following fact: a synonym can be used only with determined circle of words. However, the verbal synonyms practically do not possess such type of restrictions, though there are some examples which might be suitable, to some degree, to the given type of restrictions:

     For example, if we analyze the two synonyms - «to creep” and “to crawl”, the latter, is more preferable in usage with the names of animals who are deprived with limbs (e.g. Snakes, gophers, etc.)

     Cf: The snakes crawled around the tree.

     Contrary to the above mentioned character, the semantic restriction is assigned by denotation of determined semantic feature, which a synonym must possess when correlating in syntactical relationship with the given word.

     For instance, in the synonymic row «to escape”, “to flee”, “to fly”, “to abscond”, “to decamp” in the meaning of “избегать” the first three synonyms possess a broad combinability, than the last twos. That is, in the case of semantic combinability the subject of the corresponding actions are both people and animals.

     Cf. :His best tow dogs escaped from the camp, the dog fled into the forest.

     Meanwhile, the subject action of the verbs “to abscond” and “to decamp” are only people.

     More complicated than the previously mentioned groups are the synonyms with the referring combinability restrictions. The example of such restrictions can be shown on the following synonymic row: “to reach” - “to achieve” - “to gain” - “to attain” in the meaning of “добавляться” The following noun expressions which denote the purpose or the result of the action are of typical character for these three synonyms:

        To reach / to achieve, to gain, to attain /one’s aim ( e,g. the abject of one’s desires, success, fame, glory), “to reach (an understanding, agreement), “to achieve the reputation for being rude”, “to achieve the realization of a dream”, “to gain / to attain / the attention of the clerk [ the confidence of the mountain people]. It should be borne in the mind that the last examples the verbs “to gain” and “to attain” mustn’t be substituted onto the verbs “”to reach”, or “to achieve”, because the noun expression “to reach / to achieve / the attention of the clerk [the confidence of the mountain people] are wrong (and not only somewhat different in the meaning).

     Supervising more attentively to the nouns “attention” and “confidence”, which are capable to enter in the place of the direct object in the sentences with the verbs “to gain” and “to attain”, but not as the direct object to the verbs “to reach” and “ to achieve, we may notice the following interesting peculiar feature of the studied synonymical phrases: the subject for the state, marked by the words “attention” or “confidence”, do not correspond to the subject of the action, marked by the verbs “to gain” and “ to attain”, i.e. the attention of the clerk is attracted not by the clerk himself , but by the other person, and the confidence of highlanders is achieved by someone different from highlanders.

     However, the verbs “to gain” and “to attain” are capable to match with the nouns, marking such conditions (the characteristics, situations), the subjects of which coincide with the subjects of actions corresponding to these subjects: that is in the case of the verbs “to gain / to attain / one’s aim [success, glory]” the subject of the action of “to gain / attain” is one and the same person.

     So now we can formulate the referring restriction for the verbs “to reach” and “to achieve”: they cannot be combined with the names of conditions, the subjects of which do not coincide with the subject of the action marked by these conditions.

      The similar difference is presented in the pair of the synonyms “to condescend” - “ to deign” ( in the meaning of “снисходить”): the first of them is combined both with the name of the action or property, the subject of which coincides with the subject for the verb “ to condescend” (e.g. he condescend smile); and with the name or state the subject of which does not coincide with the subject for the verb “to condescend” (cf.: to condescend to smb’s folly). Meantime, the verb “to deign” can be combined in its meaning only with the names of the proper actions or the characteristics of the subject:

     Cf.: He didn’t deign to smile, he didn’t deign to their folly.

     The differences in combinability between the synonyms can, like constructive differences, be motivated or non-motivated.

     Let us take into consideration, for instance, the synonyms “to surprise” - “удивлять” and “to amaze”, “to astound” - изумлять”,”поражать”. They differ, in particular, on the feature of degree of a feeling. All the three synonyms can be combined with the adverbial modifiers of measure, but the verb “to surprise” can be combined with any circumstance of this class (cf.: he was a little [not a little, very much] sup), while “to amaze” and “to astound” can be combined only with those adverbial modifiers of measure, which mark the super high or the maximal degree of property, condition or feeling.

     At least once unusual unless absolutely anomalous, word-combinations.

     In the above mentioned case the differences in combinability are naturally removed from the differences in the meanings of synonyms. However, even the differences in combinability can be semantically non-motivated.

     Below we shall take into consideration some more several examples of differences in combinability between the synonyms.

     The verb “gather” “собираться” differs from their synonyms “to assemble” and “to congregate” by the following: the subject for the verbs “to assemble” and “to congregate” can only be (in stylistically neutral text) only the living beings, but the subject for the verb “to gather” - can be expressed by any moving things:

     e.g. The clouds are gathering, it will rain.

     The verbs “to ponder”, “to meditate» and “to ruminate” in the meaning of “размышлять” are combinable with the names of situation, characteristic, products of thoughts as object (the theme) of reflections:

     cf.: to ponder / to meditate/ upon the course of actions; to ruminate over the past; to ponder / to meditate, to ruminate/ the point.

     The verbs “to ponder” and “to meditate” are combinable with the names of the person as object for reflections; the latter is characterized for the verb “to ruminate”:

     cf.: to ponder on modern young men, he meditated on all those people and the things they represented in his life.

     The verbs “to depress”, “to oppress” and “to weigh down (upon)” in the meaning of “угнетать” can be combined with the names of feelings, actions, characteristics, etc. as the reasons for the oppressed condition:

     cf.: a feeling of isolation depressed / oppressed / her, she was oppressed by fear, oppressed / weighed down / by the heat. Besides, the verbs “to depress” and “to oppress” can be combined with the names of the concrete things and living beings in same meaning, which is not characteristic for the phrasal verb “to weigh down (upon)”:

     Cf.: the dim room depressed / oppressed / her, she depressed me.⁹

 

      1.7. Conceptual synonymy

     Words are felt to be synonymous independently of their contextual relations. Leech makes the distinction between synonymy and conceptual synonymy. The equivalence of meaning of synonymy has to adhere to the equivalence of concepts, independently from the stylistic overtones.

     Ex: Steed (poetic) Horse (general) Nag (slang) Gee-gee (baby language)¹⁰

     The concept ‘horse’ is evoked by these words. So these words are synonymous although they are different in their stylistic overtones. This has been strongly criticized because to prove that we all have the same concept is very doubted. Our system of conceptualization may be different from one speaker to other. The most evident example of this is baby language. When a baby says gee-gee he may be saying it to any animal that moves.