by both analyses. However the definitions might include religious belief. Second, the top lists of prohibit are analyzed.
Table 2.8 Top lists of prohibit measured by raw frequency and MI-score
raw frequency MI-score
laws 173
ordinances 8.07
rules 124
regulations 6.81
state 87
laws 6.71
states 86
statutes 6.69
regulations 84
clause 6.06
The top lists of the near-synonym prohibit shows many different nouns. There are two shared words which are laws and regulations. However, the raw frequency
and MI-score of prohibit refer to only one lexical patterns which is governmental- related. The dictionary entries of prohibit focused on preventing something from
being done especially by making it illegal and related to law or authorities and it is confirmed by both analyses.
The analyses of the nominal collocations showed that lexicographers might over think and change the example of common expressions and state more
collocations in order to clarify the peripheral semantic differences between the near-synonyms. This is especially important for learners of English of second
language learners who are unfamiliar with these rather fixed phrases. When dictionaries state these frequent collocations, foreign language learners prime the
near-synonym in that particular way. Consequently, their lexical priming is more
similar to the priming of native speakers and the language learners acquire the different nuances in meaning of the near-synonyms.
5. Stylistic variation of the near-synonyms
The last part of the study deals with the usage differences of the set of near-synonyms in terms of stylistic variation or register. Edmond and Hirst 2002,
p. 109 consider stylistic variation of near synonyms as crucial for the differentiation of their meanings. Furthermore, the register distribution pattern
reveals important information for learners of English as a second or foreign language since it is rather difficult for them to use the words in the appropriate
register Liu 2010, p. 77. Therefore, another vital aspect which should be mentioned in the dictionary entries is which near-synonym is used in a rather
formal and which in a more informal or colloquial register. For register distribution pattern of the near-synonym prohibit and forbid this study queried the
COCA across the five provided register which are fiction, newspaper, magazine, academic writing and spoken. A scale of formality was established for the five
registers provided by the COCA. The scale reaches from most formal to least formal and proposes this order: academic writing, newspaper, magazine, fiction
and spoken. The starting point for the analysis of the register distributional pattern
formed the top list nominal collocations measured by MI-score. The COCA was queried for each near-synonym prohibit and forbid, again collocating with nouns
and the result were sorted by relevance of MI-score. The top nominal collocations were examined in which register they most frequently occur. These observations
form the basis for the following assumptions: The top list nominal collocations with the near-synonym forbid mostly appear in the spoken genre. The nominal
collocations with prohibit are most frequently used the academic writing genre. This genre is the most formal register according to the scale stated above. The
word prohibit is mostly used in more formal registers whether forbid is used in less formal registers. This information should also be included in the dictionary
definitions to give a complete picture of the usage patterns of the near-synonyms.
24
CHAPTER III CONCLUSIONS
In the this chapter, the writer aims to conclude the finding of this study. The corpus-based research proved to be a successful method for describing a new
set of near-synonyms and identified meaning differentiating traits of the words prohibit and forbid via an analysis of the nominal collocations and the stylistic
variation. The study showed that the existing dictionary definitions are over generalized and consequently not sufficient to explain the meaning differences
between the two near-synonym words. Hence the study suggests ways to complement the dictionary entries with more frequently used expressions and
collocations. It seems that the reference works were only comprised via collocation analysis of near synonyms measured by raw frequency since the result
of this part of the study reflect the picture given in the dictionaries, namely that the two synonymous words are intersubstitutable and that they modify the same
type of nouns. The collocation analysis measured by raw frequency and MI-score demonstrated that the definition of the word forbid should include that this near-
synonyms is frequently used to describe something related to religious belief. Furthermore, the study found that prohibit is frequently used in governmental-
related things. The analysis of the stylistic variation revealed that forbid is used in less formal registers whether prohibit is used in more formal registers.
