The Contrastive Meanings Of Synonymous Terms In Hydrology

SKRIPSI

Submitted to fulfill one of the requirements of Sarjana Sastra Degree

RIZA SEMBHARA

NIM 63707014

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LETTERS

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF COMPUTER

BANDUNG

iv ABSTRACT

The research entitled “The Contrastive Meaning of Synonymous Term in Hydrology” was conducted to describe and analyze the contrastive meaning of synonymous term in hydrology. The theory used in this research is adopted from Larson about the aspect of meaning that causes the contrastive component that occurs in synonymous words. This theory is originally used to find the meaning from two words that are semantically close. The writer takes hydrology terms as the research object because the technical terms are unfamiliar for people.

The method used in this research is analytic descriptive. The data, which are synonymous words, are classified into their semantic set, and then, are analyzed to determine their types. Furthermore, the data were taken from magazine, newspaper, and textbook contained in Corpus America.

After conducting the research, the writer makes some conclusions that: (1). There are several aspects of meaning that bring out the contrastive component. Synonyms do not derive from their reference, but their expression; hence, it has a different in descriptive meaning but do not destroy the synonymy. (2). If the relation of two words has a minor contrast, it may be classified as near-synonymy, but conversely, if both words do not have contrastive component, it may be considered as absolute synonym. Near-synonymy may be included as hyponymy because they have a relation of exclusion. Absolute synonym is considered intersubstitutability in all possible contexts, and it is useful particularly for translators to enrich their writing skill with so many lexical choices.

v ABSTRAK

Penelitian yang berjudul “The Contrastive Meaning of Synonymous Term in Hydrology” dilakukan untuk memaparkan dan menganalisa makna yang bertentangan pada istilah-istilah yang bersinonim yang ditemukan di bidang pengairan. Teori yang digunakan untuk menentukan berbagai jenis sinonim adalah teori contrastive component yang dikembangkan oleh Larson. Teori ini digunakan untuk menentukan makna yang berbeda pada dua kata yang mempunyai hubungan yang sangat dekat. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis mengambil istilah teknik sebagai objek penelitian dikarenakan istilah teknik hanya diketahui oleh sebagian orang tertentu saja yang ahli di bidangnya.

Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analisis. Semua data adalah dengan mengklasifikasikan sinonim tersebut ke dalam kelas umumnya. Setelah itu, sinonim dikategorikan berdasarkan jenisnya. Data diambil dari berbagai sumber yang ada termasuk majalah, buku, dan koran yang ada pada Corpus America.

Setelah dilakukan penelitian, penulis dapat menarik simpulan bahwa: (1). Sinonim tidak berdasarkan acuan, akan tetapi dari kedekatan makna yang ada. Ada nya perbedaan makna itu akan sangat sedikit akan tetapi tidak mengganggu hubungan sinonimnya. (2). Sebuah sinonim tidak akan bisa digolongkan menjadi absolute sinonim jika dia masih mempunyai makna yang berbeda, sebaliknya jika sinonim itu masih mempunyai makna yang tidak sama maka dia hanya bisa digolongkan menjadi near-synonym. Near-synonym juga bisa termasuk kedalam kelompok hiponim karena adanya perbedaan dalam makna dan relasinya. Dari sini bisa disimpulkan bahwa absolute synonym bisa saling berganti dalam tiap konteks yang ada sehingga bisa dipergunakan oleh penerjemah untuk memperkaya khasanah tulisannya.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer feels so grateful to Allah SWT for giving me the power to finish this thesis as soon as possible. The writer also gives a prayer up to our beloved prophet Muhammad SAW and his family.

This thesis is entitled “The Contrastive Meanings of Synonymous Terms in Hydrology”. It is proposed to fulfill one of the requirements of sarjana satra Degree, Undergraduate Program of English Department, Faculty of Letters UNIKOM.

Finally, it is a big honor to thank to certain persons who help me in finishing this thesis. I am gladly to express my gratitude to:

1. Prof. Dr. Moh. Tadjuddin, M.A, as the dean of Faculty of Letters Unikom. 2. Retno Purwani Sari, S.S., M.Hum., as the Head of English Department.

Thank you so much for everything.

3. Dr. Nia Kurniasih, as the first advisor. Thank you so much for guiding me in writing this thesis.

4. Dr. Juanda, as the second advisor. Thank you for guiding and advising me in writing this thesis.

5. All lecturers in UNIKOM, particularly in English department for teaching and sharing all the knowledge.

vii

The writer also realizes that this research is far from the perfection, and hope for any suggestions and critiques.

Bandung, July 26th, 2011

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter the writer deals with background to the study, research questions, objectives, significance to knowledge, and also framework of the theories.

1.1 Background to the Study

Nowadays, writing has become more essential part in human life. There are various jobs that deal with writing such as novelist, composer, screenwriter and many more. This circumstance, however, leads into many difficulties in writing particularly in producing literary works that deal with many lexical choices. One may be deceived by single lexical unit that have so many synonyms, and cannot choose a proper word that fits in the context. It is not quite easy to find a proper lexical unit among synonyms because there are so many types of synonym.

Basically, Synonyms are different words with identical or very similar meanings, according to Richtarcikova (2007). The word synonym is derived from

Ancient Greek syn (same) and onoma (name). English potentially has so many

synonyms, and in this research the writer focuses on how differentiate the types of synonym. Furthermore, there are many kinds of synonymy, including

near-synonymy that are close in meaning but not identical. For Instance, fog and mist

2

components of fog are included in componential specification of mist, but they have a minor contrast. They have a different in scale of degree; it means that they are not intersubstitutability in all possible contexts without changing meaning.

To solve these problems, finding the contrast is the suitable option in order to determine the type of synonym. In searching the contrastive meaning, it may be found through contrastive component that is developed by Larson. According to Larson, by grouping together word which are related to one another and then semantically looking at the contrast between these words, one is able to determine the meaning (1984:79). In determining a contrastive component, a word that will be searched for its contrastive component must be grouped together with the other word that is semantically close. Cruse states that in looking at the meaning of the lexical items which belong to the same semantic set, one needs to first identify the class to which it belongs (1984:86). In this research, all the data, which are synonym, are grouped into their generic class.

In this research, the writer analyzes synonym in specific term as the research object. Moreover, the writer chooses synonymous term in hydrology. Hydrology is one branch of science that is already known widely, and it has so many sub branches. The data are obtained from two sources, which are from a single sentence and two sentences. In a single sentence, the writer finds and compares a pair of word weather they have relation of exclusion or not. Next, synonyms are taken from a single sentence. Halliday and Hasan State (1976:320) that the cohesion is a function of the relation between the lexical items themselves, which has both semantic aspect – synonym, hyponymy or metonymy.

It indicates that cohesion may join two synonymous lexical units in single sentence. Additionally, expressions may differ in sense, but have the same reference; and synonymous means having the same sense, not having the same referent, according to Lyons (1976:199) The synonyms do not depend on the same reference, but from the sense relations.

This skripsi, entitled “The Contrastive Meanings of Synonymous Terms in

Hydrology”, deals with the contrastive component that compares a pair of word that is semantically related, and their relation that make them semantically close. The contrastive component may bring out certain aspects of meaning, depending on their generic class. Moreover, the data are categorized into their generic class in order to make easier in finding contrastive component and the aspect of meaning.

1.2 Research Questions

1. What are the aspects of meaning resulted from the contrastive component of synonymous terms in hydrology?

4

1.3 Objectives

1. To describe the aspects of meaning resulted from the contrastive component of synonymous terms in hydrology.

2. To find out the relationship of those synonymous terms in hydrology.

1.4 Significance to Knowledge

This research aims to give information about types of synonym. Each synonym is different. Two words may not be irreplaceable with other word if they have a contrast in their relation though they are synonym. Through contrastive component, the writer may differentiate the difference in each synonym, and simplify in choosing a proper word. If a pair of word does not possess a contrastive component, both words may be categorized as absolute synonym and it helps us in using a difference lexical item but it has the same meaning without having anomaly.

Additionally, the contrastive component may be used for the translator to find a lexical equivalent or differentiate two or more synonymous words. Furthermore, it will be useful for students to enrich their writing skills in lexical choice.

1.5 Framework of the Theories

In analyzing the contrastive component between a pair of word, the writer uses various theories that support the writer in this research and prove the research hypothesis. The theory are adopted from Larson’s theory (1984). Larson states that by grouping together words which are related to one another and then semantically looking at the contrast between these words, one is able to determine the meaning (1984:79).

In analyzing the data, the writer uses the componential analysis. In addition, John Lyons explains that the sense-components (for which there is so far no generally accepted terms) may be thought of as atomic, and the senses of particular lexemes as molecular, concepts (1977:317). Meanwhile, Cruse states that one of the earliest and still most persistent and widespread ways of approaching word meaning of a word as being contracted out of smaller, more elementary, invariant units of meaning, somewhat of the analogy of the atomic structure of matter (2000:98)

Contrastive pairs may be very helpful in determining meaning of particular word (Larson, 1984:79). Each word that is closely related has the contrastive component which distinguishes those words.

6 CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL REVIEW

In this chapter the writer focuses on describing the theories related to the topic of the thesis. The first part of this chapter deals with the introduction to lexical semantic. Additionally, the writer explains what semantic is, and then decribes synonymy, hyponymy, meronymy, and polysemy.The next part is related with contrastive component, sense-relations and conjunction.

2.1Lexical Semantic

According to Palmer (1976:1), semantic is the technical term used to refer to the study of meaning. Moreover, he says meaning covers a variety of speects of language, and there is no very general agreement either about what meaning is or about the way in which it should be described.

Lexical semantic is subfield in the study of semantic. It studies the meaning of lexical unit. Because lexical semantic deals with the meaning of lexical unit, it is generally different from the semantic that studies the meaning in the sentence or clause. Lexical semantic only focuses on learning the meaning of lexical units. Cruse states that word meaning are not the sort of semantic units that one can communicate with on individual basis, unless other meaning components are implicit (2000:90).

According to Pustejovsky (1995), lexical semantic is the study of how and what the words of a language denote. In this chapter, there are some theories that deal with lexical unit as follows:

2.1.1 Synonymy

According to Richtarcikova (2007), synonyms are different words with identical or very similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy. Accoding to O’Grady, synonyms are words or expressions that have the same meanings in some or all contexts (1997:269). In some ways, Cruse states that synonyms are word whose semantic similarities are more salient than their differences, than a potential are of interest opens up (2000:156). Cruse explains that synonym must have so many similaraties, but he does not deny that synonym cannot have a difference or a contrast. Moreover, other linguist, F.R.Palmer (1976:59), mentions that synonymy is used to mean sameness of meaning. He says that it is abvious that for the dictionary-maker many sets of words have the same meaning; they are synonymous, or are synonyms of one another. Additionally, in looking at possible synonyms there are at least five ways in which they can be seen to differ, according to Palmer, which are:

1. Some sets of synonym belong to different dialects of the language.

2. There is a similar situation, but a more problematic one, with the words that are used in different style or register.

8

3. Some words may be said to differ only in their emotive or evaluative meanings.

4. Some words are collocationally restricted. They occur only in conjunction with other words.

5. Many words are close in meaning, or that their meaning overlap.

In thesis there are found three types of synonym that Cruse mentions, they are:

2.1.1.1Absolute Synonymy

According to Cruse (2000:157), absolute synonyms can be defined as items which are equinormal in all contexts. Cruse mentions that if word (a) put in a context, and then it is changed with word (b), then it will not result anomaly. In the other hand, the context does not become odd because of the existence of word (b). An unit is clasiffied as absolute synonymy when differentiating contexts are hard to find.

Additionally, Cruse takes sofa and sette as example. Both are interchanele in all contexts. If sofa is changed by settee in a context, there will be no anomaly in that context. Futhermore, he ensures that the same unit of meaning is involved in all the contexts used in the argument.

2.1.1.2Cognitive Synonymy

Cognitive synonymy is also known as descriptive synonymy, propositional synonymy, or referential synonymy in many ways. According to Lyons (1981),

cognitive synonymy is sometimes described as incomplete synonymy. Cruse (2000:158) states that if two lexical items are propositional synonyms, they can be substituted in any expression with truth-conditional properties without effect on those properties. From the statement, cognitive synonymy is synonym that refers to the same object or referent because it has the same truth conditional properties. Furthermore, cognitive synonymy is the different in use. Though they belong to the same referent, but it cannot be used without a proper context.

Example:

Synonyms Use

Had intercourse In a court of law

Made love The most neutral

Fucked In an airport bookstall

Cruse takes the example above. Had intercourse, made love and fucked are refers to same referent but they distinguish in use. The first one is more likely used in the court of law; meanwhile, the second one is the most neutral, or can be used in almost areas. The third one is applied in a typical novel found in an airport bookstall.

2.1.1.3Near-synonymy or Plesionymy

According to Hirst, plesionyms, or near-synonyms, are words that are almost synonyms, but not quite. Meanwhile, Cruse states:

10

Synonyms, on the other hand, do not function primarily to contrast with on another (this is what was meant by saying earlier that in the case of synonyms, heir common features were more salient than their differences). In certain contexts, of course, they may contrast, and this is especially true of near-synonyms: He was killed, but I can assure you he was NOT murdered, madam. (2000:159)

Though synonyms clearly indicate the similarity in their relation, but near-synonym has the contrast that differ them in theirs. These contrasts are completely covered by the similarity in their relations. Moreover, Cruse mentions two points. Firstly, he says that language users do have intuitions as two which pairs of words are synonyms and which are not. Secondly, it is not adequate to say simply that there is a scale of semantic distance, and that synonyms are words whose meanings are relatively close. In the other hand, it needs to consider the language user’s intuition; though the synonyms have a contrast in their relations, it is still categorized as synonym. Take a look at the following example:

fog:mist laugh:chuckle hot:scorching

They all have a contrast that emerges in their relation, though they are synonym. Near-synonym must be backgrounded as Cruse mentioned; it means that synonym may have a contrast, and the intuition of language user is more dominant in deciding the synonymy. Among minor differences, Cruse says it may be counted the following example: adjacent position on scale of degree aspectual distinctions.

2.1.2 Polysemy

A single concept can be expressed by several different words (synonymy), and that conversely, one word can carry different meaning, according to Ravin and Leacock (2000). Meanwhile, Palmer mentions that polysemy is the case that the same word may have a set of different meanings (1976:65). Palmer takes flight as an example. The dictionary treats flight as a single word, but it recognizes no less than five words for various meanings. Look at the other example below:

Polysemic word First meaning Second meaning Bank a financial institution the building where a financial institution offers services

From the dictionary, bank has two meanings. The first one is a financial institution, and the second one is the building where a financial institution offers services.

2.1.3 Meronymy

Meronymy or part-whole relation is exemplified by arm:body or wheel:bycycle. According to Lyons. Lyons prefer to call this relation as part-whole relation; meanwhile, other linguists call as meronymy. In instance, in the case of finger:hand, finger is said to be the meronym, and hand is the holonym. According to cruse (2000:153), meronymy, even more strikingly than hyponymy,

12

displays a prototypic character, and it seems more profitable to enquire into the features which contribute to centrality in the concept. The concept in meronymy is part and whole. Finger is part of hand, and hand becomes the whole of finger. Moreover, hand becomes the centrality of all parts. Furthermore, Cruse said that meronymy shows interesting parallels with hyponymy (2000:153). A dog is not part of an animal, or a finger is not kind of hand. According to Larson, there are some principal in meronymy,

2.1.3 Hyponymy

According to Cruse, hyponymy is one of the most important structuring relations in the vocabulary of a language (2000:150). It describes relations between two words, and it is important in structuring vocabulary of a language. Moreover, Cruse says (2000:150):

From the extensional point of views, the class denoted by the superordinate term includes the class denoted by the hyponym as a sub class; thus, the class of fruit includes the class of apples as one of its subclasses.

From the statement above, fruit acts as the hyperonym of apple because fruit is the superordinate. Apple is subordinate because it is the hyponym of fruit. The meaning in of fruit is included in apple. Additionally, Palmer adds that the upper term is the superordinate and the lower term the hyponym (1976:76). Moreover, apple is co-hyponym with orange; their meaning is equal completely. Look the example below:

apple (subeordinate) hyponym of fruit orange co-hyponym with apple

From the relation above, it is distinguished from their common by semantic features which cannot be simultaneously present, according to Cruse (2000:165). Next, Cruse states that W(1) is a hyponym of W(2) if all the components of W(2) are included in the componential specification of W(1). Look at the example below:

stallion [animal][equine][male] is a hyponym of horse [animal][equine]

Stallion becomes the hyponym of horse because all the components of horse are included in stallion.

2.2Componential Analysis

Lyons says that the sense of every lexeme can be analyzed in terms of a set of more general sense-components, some or all of which will be common to several different lexemes in the vocabulary (1977:317). Meanwhile, Larson states (1984:80) when displaying a lexical set in a chart, the words go into boxes, and the columns are labeled by the meaning components which are the basis of contrast between the words. This column, according to Larson, may be helpful to the translator to make displays which show the contrastive of meaning for certain areas of vocabulary. Through the componential analysis, it may be easier to distinguish the contrastive components of the lexical units.

14

2.2.1 Contrastive Components

Larson (1984:79) said that the meaning of a lexical item can only be discovered by studying that particular item in contrast to other items which are closely related. Larson uses generic component and contrastive component in searching for the meaning and distinguish one lexical unit from another. For example, according to Larson, the contrastive component which separate table, chair, wardrobe, cabinet, and cupboard deals with the shape and the use of these particular pieces of furniture (1984:85). In finding the contrastive component of the following items, it must identify the class first. Lexical items that do not belong to same generic class cannot search for the contrastive component.

From the same semantic class, it can be studied the contrastive component. Look at the example below:

From the example above, furniture acts as the general class. They all belong to the same semantic set. Because of it, they can be studied in contrast, and searched for the meaning.

furniture

2.3Coordinating Conjunction

Halliday and Hasan State (1976:320) that the cohesion is a function of the relation between the lexical items themselves, which has both semantic aspect – synonym, hyponymy or metonymy. Each coordinating conjunction has their specific function besides join words or phrases. Here, it will be explained the function of “and” and “or”. Coordinating conjunction is conjunction that joins a single word or groups of word that have similar element. It cannot join two words or phrases that come from different class.

2.4Sense Relations

According to Lyons (1977:197), sense is the term used by a number of philosophers for what others would describe simply as their meaning, or perhaps more narrowly as their cognitive or descriptive meaning. He explains that if two expressions has the same referent, but they could not be said to have the same sense, then they are not synonymous. Moreover, he mentions expressions may differ in sense, but have the same reference; and synonymous means having the same sense not having the same reference. The statement indicates that synonym does not only come from the same referent, but it can emerge from different referent but has the same sense.

16 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH OBJECT AND METHOD

In this chapter the writer describes the method used in conducting the research. Moreover, this chapter consists of reseach object, reseach method, technique of data collection and tecnique of data analysis.

3.1 Research Object

This research deals with lexical semantic; hence, the object of this research is a pair of words or synonyms that are semanticaly related. Those words or phrases are synonym that were obtained from magazine and academic journal of hidrologic contexts.

Because the writer uses synonym as the research object, the object is divided into two groups. Those groups are the synonyms that were taken in the form of one sentence and two sentences.

3.2 Research Method

In this research the writer uses analytic descritive method. The data which were obtained by the writer was analyzed based on the teories related to the research. According to Ratna (2006: 53)

Metode deskriptif analitik dilakukan dengan cara mendeskripsikan fakta-fakta-fakta yang kemudian disusul dengan analisis. Secara etimologis deskripsi dan analisis berarti menguraikan.

Meanwhile, Surakhmad (1998: 147) states:

Metode deskriptif adalah metode yang memusatkan pada pemecahan-pemecahan masalah, dengan cara mengumpulkan data, menyusun atau mengklasifikasiakan, menganalisa, dan kemudian menginterpretasikanya.

In this research, the writer only describes data, collects, classifies, and then makes the conclusion of the data.

3.2.1 Data Collection

The data were taken from many sources such as academic journal, magazine and text book that contain in Corpus America. Corpus America is reliable source and it may be used for a researcher in finding data, and the data which is text must be written by the native and it is already published to public. Aside from the corpus the writer uses the library as the source of collecting data. Generally, there are several methods in collecting data, and in this case, the writer chooses field and library research.

In this research, the writer collects the synonym. The synonym is noun, specifically it is concrete noun. It is done to make a simple mind mapping of this research. The data that are collected are a pair of word, and divided into their generic class. Below is the step of collecting data that the writer uses:

18

1. Searching for synonym in hydrologic terms.

In hydrologic field, there are various synonymies that may be analyzed. First, the writer searches for hydrologic terms that have a noun class, and after that, finds its synonym that are still in hydrologic field. Both words, at least, are closely related each other in order to find the relationship between them.

2. Finding data

The writer took the data from a hydrologic books and magazines in order to make a valid data and it can be categorized as hydrologic terms.

3. Filtering the synonym

The data are synonymous words, and it is classified as concrete noun, then, from these data, the writer will classify in their generic class.

4. Classifying the data based on the generic class

Finally, all the collected data were classified, and it depends on their generic class.

3.2.2 Data Analysis

Data 1

Because lime is alkaline, adding it to the sea would also reduce ocean

In this case, sea:ocean may not be qualified as an absolute synonym. They have contrasts in their certain aspect. These contrasts do not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. Next, both are not belong to the same referent, and not identical; hence, they may not be classified as cognitive synonymy. Finally, they may be only considered as near-synonymy. They have a contrast in their aspect so they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words

Hyponymy

From the relation above, both is not subordinate or superordinate, considering sea is not a hyperonym of ocean, and ocean is not hyponym of sea

because they belong to the same generic class. In conclusion, they are having co-hyponymy relation. In addition, they do not have meronymy or part-whole relation, sea:ocean are not a holonym or meronym; ocean is not part of sea, and vice verse.

Because they are included in near-synonymy relation, they have certain contrasts, which deal with size and water volume. These contrasts differentiate them in contrast and emerge the contrastive component. In size, sea has [small],

and for ocean, it obtains [large] as the contrastive component. Next, in water

Water Volume Size Near-Synonymy

(Co-Hyponym) Sea

Ocean (Co-Hyponym)

20

volume, sea deals with [small], and ocean owns [large] for the contrastive component.

21

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter the writer describes the discussion in analyzing the contrastive compenents between a pair of word and their relations based on the data that the writer found. Therefore, the synonyms are clearly divided into two groups. First, it is directly obtained from one sentence, and second it is taken from two sentences. Moreover, each synonym is classified into the generic class. In addition, the meanings of each word can be found in glosarry.

4.1 Synonym in One Sentence

4.1.1 Precipitation as the Generic Class

Data 1

You should be able to tell if there is rain, snow, or sleet in the forecast, but sometimes the clouds roll in from nowhere. (HT, p.74)

In this case, sleet, rain and snow are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the semantic relations. Below are the relations among those words:

Words Hyponymy Synonymy

sleet - snow Co-hyponym Synonym

rain - snow Co-hyponym -

22

As the table shown above, among those words there are only sleet and snow that are considered as synonym. They may not be categorized as an absolute synonym because they have a contrast that will cause an anomaly in their uses. Thus, sleet and snow do not refer to samilar thing; hence, it is not included in cognitive synonym. Sleet and snow have a distinction on scale of degree that differentiates them. This minor difference may bring sleet and snow as near-synonym. As the result, sleet and snow cannot become more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

As shown above, sleet is not hyponym or subordinate of snow, and conversely snow is not superordinate of sleet. Sleet is not types of snow; hence, it does not become hyponym as subclass. Thus, sleet and snow have co-hyponymy relation because they belong to same generic class. In addition, sleet and snow have no meronymy relation. Sleet is not a part of snow, and vice verse. Sleet and

snow is not a holonym and meronym.

As they considered as near-synonym, sleet and snow have the contrast in certain aspect. First, the contrastive components which distinguish sleet and snow deal with shape. For sleet, the components are [melted snow]. Comparatively, snow has [freezing ice] as the contrastive components. These contrastive

(Contrast) Near-Synonymy

Occurrence Shape (Co-Hyponym)

Snow

Sleet (Co-Hyponym)

components create the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

Data 2

...hoarfrost accumulates, and the thick rime crushes like sugar cubes as... (TCOF, p.16)

In this case, hoarfrost and rime may not be categorized as absolute synonym. It is clear enough that hoarfrost and rime have the distinction that distinguish them both in shape and occurrence. In conclusion, if they attach in a context, both will cause an anomaly. Next, hoarfrost and rime may not be classified into cognitive synonym; they do not belong to the same reference, meaning they are not samilar both in form and others. Semantically, because their contrast in certain aspect, they may only become near-synonym. They cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

In hyponymy relation, hoarfrost and rime do have the relation, but not as hyperonym and hyponym relation. hoarfrost and rime have co-hyponym relation. Hoarfrost is not type of rime, and rime is not kind of hoarfrost. They are a pair that belongs to the same generic class, meaning hoarfrost is not superordinate or subordinate of rime or vice verse. Furthermore, hoarfrost and rime do not have

(Contrast)

Occurrence Shape Near-Synonymy

(Co-Hyponym) Hoarfrost

Rime (Co-Hyponym)

24

meronymy relation, considering hoarfrost is not part of rime. As the result,

hoarfrost and rime is not a holonym or meronym.

Because hoarfrost and rime is included in near-synonym, they may have some contrasts that distinguish them. hoarfrost and rime deal with the same generic component. Dealing with shape, hoarfrost has [needle-like ice] as the contrastive component, and [milky and opaque granular ice] for rime. Meanwhile, in occurrence, they have [on the ground] for hoarfrost and [on the leaf] for rime. These aspects will influence their superordinate and subordinate. These contrastive components become the relation of exclusion, resulting co-hyponym relation.

4.1.2 Body of Water as the Generic Class

Data 3

Photographing water in the form of a river, stream or waterfall within a landscape image has a number of challenges. (PWIL, p.31)

In this case, river, stream and waterfall are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the semantic relations. Below are the relations among those words:

Words Hyponymy Synonymy

river - stream Co-hyponym Synonym

waterfall - river Co-hyponym -

As the table shown above, among those words there are only river and

stream that are considered as synonym. They may be classified as near-synonym

or plesionymy; they have a contrast on scale of degree though semantically they are related. Next, because they are near-synonym, it indicates as absolute synonym. Furthermore, stream and river are not cognitive synonym; they do not refer to same reference. Thus, stream and river have a contrast that distinguish them. Here is the relation between both words:

Stream as co-hyponym:

Hyponymy

Stream as meronym:

Polysemic

Meronymy

Stream has the polysemy, considering they have more than one meaning;

hence, stream has two meaning that is related to hydrologic term. In the first meaning, stream means a flow of water in a channel. Itis part of river, and river is the whole of stream. In conclusion, stream and river have meronymy relation.

Stream becomes the meronym and river the holonym because stream in the other

(Meronym) Stream

River (Holonym)

Water Volume

Size Near-Synonymy

(Co-Hyponym) Stream

River (Co-Hyponym)

26

meaning is part of river. In the hyponymy relation, stream and river have semantic relation and co-hyponym relation. Stream is not type or kind of river; thus, stream is neither subordinate nor superordinate of river. stream and river have similarities, and is type of flowing water. Moreover, stream and river are hypernym for word or phrase for their types in taxonomic hierarchy.

Because they have contrast in their relationship, they have contrastive components that deal with size and water volume. In size, stream and river have [small] in size and [small] in water volume as the contrastive component; meanwhile, river has [large] in size and [big] in water volume. This pair belongs to the same generic class because they have homonymy relation. These contrastive components result incompatibility, and make them as co-hyponym..

Data 4

Cook Inlet is a semienclosed tidal estuary,... (BHAICI, p.60)

In this case, both inlet and estuary cannot be considered as absolute synonym; they have distinction on certain scale. These contrasts do not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. Next, they may not be in cognitive synonym, considering they do not belong to the same reference and they are not identical. They may only be considered as near-synonym. They have certain aspects that distinguish them, and they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

As shown above, inlet is not a hyperonym or hyponym of estuary because inlet is not type estuary or vice verse. As the result, both are not subordinate or superordinate. In conclusion, they have co-hyponymy relation. Futhermore, in meronymy relation, inlet is not part estuary and vice verse; hence, inlet and

estuary is not holonym or meronym.

Next, what make them may be considered as near-synonym are certain aspects that distinguish them. They have only a little semantic relation. This is what makes them different. These contrastive components in inlet and estuary deal with the size and water volume. In size, inlet and estuary has [narrow] and [wide] as the contrastive component, and then, for water volume, they has [small] and [big]. In conclusion, inlet and estuary belong to same generic class, and because they have the inclusion, they are categorized as co-hyponym.

Data 5

The river empties into Robson Bight, a bay renowned for the world's largest concentration of orcas.. (TBC, p.42)

In this case, bight and bay do not belong to absolute synonym because they have contrasts that distinguish them on certain scale. These contrasts do not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an

Near-Synonymy

Water Volume

Size

(Contrast) Inlet

Estuary (Co-Hyponym)

28

anomaly. Futhermore, they may not be classified as cognitive synonym. They are not identical and not belong to same reference. Moreover, they may only considered as near-synonym; thus, they have certain aspect that distinguish them, and they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

As shown above, bight is subordinate of bay. It is type of bay. Bight has some additional characteristics that make bight type of bay. Then, bay becomes superordinate of bight. Bay is hyperonym of bight, and bight becomes the hyponym. Bay is the generic class of bay. In conclusion, they do not have co-hyponymy relation. In addition, they have not meronymy relation, bight is not part of bay and vice verse.

They are considered as near-synonym because they are semantically not similar, yet they have minor differences. All the semantic components of bay are shared in componential specification of bight such as [inanimate], [body of water], [area], [surrounded by land] and [blocking some waves], but there is a semantic component that is not shared with bay, which is [small]. It makes them categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.

Size (Hyperonym)

Bay

Bight (Hyponym)

Superordinate

Subordinate

Near-Synonymy (Contrast)

Data 6

Our eyes follow the foaming flow of a waterfall and cascade,... (TS, p.82)

In this case, waterfall and cascade are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the synonymy and hyponymy. Waterfall and cascade are categorized as near-synonym; hence, they may not be categorized as an absolute synonym and cognitive synonym. These contrasts do not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. They have certain contrast that will cause an anomaly in a context. Moreover, they are not identical and do not refer to the same reference; hence, it is not cognitive synonym. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

As shown above, waterfall and cascade have hyponymy relation. Cascade is type of waterfall; hence, it becomes the subordinate of waterfall, and waterfall becomes the superordinate of cascade. In conclusion, waterfall becomes the hyperonym, and cascade becomes the hyponym. They do not have co-hyponym relation. In addition, they do not have part-whole or meronymy relation.

They are considered as near-synonym because they are semantically not similar, yet they have minor differences. All the semantic components of waterfall

Size (Hyperonym)

Waterfall

Cascade (Hyponym)

Superordinate

Subordinate

Near-Synonymy (Contrast)

30

are shared in componential specification of cascade such as [inanimate], [body of water], [falling water], and [vertical step in river], but there is a semantic component that is not shared with cascade, which is [small]. It makes them categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.

Data 7

...wetlands preserve at West Meadow Creek in Stony Brook... (News Notes, p.5)

In this case, creek and brook may not be considered as an absolute synonym. They have certain contrast that differentiate them. These contrasts do not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. Moreover, both words can not be categorized as cognitive synonym. They do not belong to the same reference, and do not have same identical referent. Finally, they may only categorized as near-synonym. They have a contrast that differentiate them even though semantically related. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

Near-Synonymy

Water Volume

Size

(Contrast) (Co-Hyponym)

Brook

Creek (Co-Hyponym)

As shown above, brook is not hyperonym or hyponym of creek; as the result, they are not superordinate or subordinate. brook is not type of creek, and

creek is not kind of brook. In conclusion, they have co- hyponymy relation.

Moreover, they do not have meronymy relation. brook is a whole, but creek is not part of it; certainly, they are not a holonym and meronym.

Because they have a distinction that make qualified as near-synonym relation, it may be obtained the contrastive components. Moreover, they differentiate on scale of degree of size and water volume. In size, brook has the component [large], and then, creek has [small] as the contrastive component. Aside from size, brook and creek deal with water volume in obtaining the contrastive component. Brook has [big] as the component, and creek obtains [small] as the contrastive component. These contrastive components result incompatibility, and make them as co-hyponym.

Data 8

Controlled inundation of the floodplain could reduce flood costs... (EITOS, p.321)

In this case, inundation and flood may not be categorized as an absolute synonym because they have a contrast in their relation, meaning it will cause an anomaly in a context. Next, they may not be considered as cognitive synonym; they are different in referent, and they are not identical. In conclusion, they may only be qualified as near-synonym. They have a contrast that differentiate them in certain aspect, and they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

32

Hyponymy

As shown above, inundation and flood have hyponymy relation.

Inundation is type of flood; hence, it becomes the subordinate of flood, and flood

becomes the superordinate of inundation. In conclusion, flood becomes the hyperonym, and Inundation becomes the hyponym. They do not have co-hyponym relation. In addition, they do not have part-whole or meronymy relation. Both are not holonym or meronym.

They are considered as near-synonym because they are semantically not similar, yet they have minor differences. All the semantic components in flood are included in componential specification of inundation such as [area of water], [overflowing water], and [disaster], but there is a semantic component that is not shared with inundation, which is [large]. It makes them categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.

4.1.3 Wetland as the Generic Class

Data 9

Later came a freshwater reed swamp and a salt marsh beside the river:... (MUW, p.30)

Size Superordinate

Subordinate (Hyperonym)

Flood

Inundation (Hyponym)

Near-Synonymy (Contrast)

In this case, swamp and marsh are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the synonymy. Swamp and marsh are not classified as an absolute synonym because they have certain aspect that differentiates them. Marsh may not be replaced by swamp without having an anomaly in certain contexts. Moreover, they also may not be categorized as cognitive synonym; they do not belong to the same reference. Their referent is not identical or it is not the same. Then, they may only be categorized as near-synonym because they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

As shown above, marsh is not type of swamp; hence, it is not a hyperonym or hyponym. In conclusion, marsh is not superordinate or subordinate, and same

for swamp. They belong to same generic class; they have co-hyponym relation.

Moreover, marsh is not part of swamp, and vice verse. In addtion, they have no part-whole or meronymy relation. Marsh is not part of swamp, and vice verse.

Because swamp and marsh are clasified as near-synonym, they have certain aspect that differentiate them in their relation. The contrastive components deal with living plant and location. Comparatevely, in dealing with living plant,

swamp has [dominated by tree], and [dominated by gresses] for marsh as the

(Contrast)

Location Near-Synonymy

(Co-Hyponym) Swamp

Marsh (Co-Hyponym)

Living Plant

34

contrastive component. Next, in location, it has [near forest] for swamp, and [near irrigation] for marsh. These contrastive components result incompatibility, and make them as co-hyponym.

Data 10

…and ice chest for a visit to the Gulf Islands National Seashore along the Gulf Coast. (SBS, p.58)

In this case, seashore and coast do not belong to the absolute synonym. It is clear that they have a distinction that differentiate them, causing the emerging of anomaly if seashore replace by coast in a context. Next, they may not classifed as cognitive synonym. They do not belong to the same reference, and their referent is not much identical.in conclusion, they may only be classfied as near-synonym because they have a contrast, and they cannot be more near-synonymous though semantically related. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

Firstly, seashore and coast have a co-hyponymy relation; thus, seashore is not type of coast, and coast is not kind of seashore. Both belong to the same generic class. Hence, seashore is not a hyperonym of coast, and coast is not hyponym of seashore. In conclusion, seashore:coast is not a subordinate and superordinate. In addition, they have no part-whole or meronymy relation. Location Near-Synonymy

(Co-Hyponym) Seashore

Coast (Co-Hyponym)

Living Plant

seashore is not part of coast, and vice verse; hence they are not a holonym and meronym.

Because they have different in certain aspect, both are considered as near-synonym, as a result, they have the contrastive component that deals with [living plant], and location. Firstly, when it deals with living plant, seashore have [dominated by coconut trees and grasses] for coast as the contrastive component. Then, in location, seashore deals with [at high tide and low tide], and coast obtains [at landward of the shore] for the contrastive component. These contrastive components result incompatibility, and make them as co-hyponym.

4.1.4 Headworks as the Generic Class

Data 11

...the extensive North Vietnamese dike and weir systems because of the heavy loss of life such strikes would have entailed. (WD, p.103)

In this case, dike and weir are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the synonymy. They do not belong to an absolute synonym; they have a contrast in certain aspect. It does not make the irreplaceable in a context. Next, they may not be categorized as cognitive synonym; they are not identical, and do not belong to the same reference. Finally, they may only be categorized as near-synonym. They have a contrast in their aspect so they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

36

Hyponymy

As shown above, dike and weir have a co-hyponymy relation because dike is not type of weir, and weir is not kind of dike. Both belong to the same generic class. Hence, dike is not a hyperonym of weir, and weir is not hyponym of dike. In conclusion, dike and weir is not a subordinate and superordinate. In addition, they have no part-whole relation. Weir is not part of dike, and vice verse; hence they are not a holonym and meronym.

Because they have a distinction that make them qualified as near-synonym relation, they own the contrastive components which deal with mainfunction and

shape. These contrasts make them different even though they are synonym and

cause the contrastive component. In main function, dike has [for preventing floods], and for weir, it has [for controlling the flow] as the contrastive component. Next, in shape, dike deals with [a low wall], and weir obtains [a long wall] for the contrastive component. This contrastive component causes the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

Data 12

Coastal engineering structure means but is not limited to, any breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty, revetment, seawall, weir, rip-rap or any other structure that is designed to alter wave,.. (HOTS, p.125)

Near-Synonymy

Shape Main Function (Contrast)

(Co-Hyponym) Dike

Weir (Co-Hyponym)

In this case, breakwater, bulkhead, groin, jetty, revetment, seawall, weir,

and rip-rap are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the semantic

relations. Below are the relations among those words:

Words Hyponymy Synonymy

breakwater - bulkhead Co-hyponym -

breakwater – groin Co-hyponym -

breakwater – jetty Co-hyponym Synonym

breakwater – revetment Co-hyponym -

breakwater – seawall Co-hyponym Synonym

breakwater – weir Co-hyponym -

breakwater – rip-rap Co-hyponym -

bulkhead - groin Co-hyponym -

bulkhead – jetty Co-hyponym -

bulkhead – revetment Co-hyponym -

bulkhead - seawall Co-hyponym -

bulkhead - weir Co-hyponym -

bulkhead – rip-rap Co-hyponym -

groin - jetty Co-hyponym Synonym

groin - revetment Co-hyponym -

groin - seawall Co-hyponym Synonym

groin - weir Co-hyponym -

38

jetty - revetment Hyperonym/hyponym -

jetty - seawall Co-hyponym Synonym

jetty - weir Co-hyponym -

jetty – rip-rap Co-hyponym -

revetment - seawall Co-hyponym -

revetment - weir Co-hyponym -

revetment – rip-rap Co-hyponym -

seawall - weir Co-hyponym -

seawall – rip-rap Co-hyponym -

weir – rip-rap Co-hyponym Synonym

As the table shown above, among those words there are only six synonyms, but only seawall and breakwater that deal with main function and shape in aspect of meaning. They may not be classified as absolute synonym. They have a different in certain aspect. These contrasts do not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. Furthermore, they are not qualified as cognitive synonym; they do not belong to same reference, and are not identical. Thus, they may only be considered as near-synonym; they have a contrast, and they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

Shape Main Function Near-Synonymy

(Contrast) (Co-Hyponym)

Breakwater

Seawall (Co-Hyponym)

As shown above, breakwater and seawall have co-hyponymy relation.

Seawall is not type of breakwater, and breakwater is not kind of seawall.

Therefore, breakwater and seawall is not a hyperonym or hyponym; thus, they are not a subordinate or superordinate. In addition, they do not have part-whole or meronymy. Breakwater is not part of seawall, and vice verse.

Because classified as near-synonym, they are have some distinctions that deal with function and shape. First, in shape, breakwater has [a massive wall],

and seawall has [a long embankment] as the contrastive component. Moreover,

when dealing with main function, they have [for protecting a harbor] for

breakwater, and [for preventing erosion] for seawall. This contrastive component

causes the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

Data 13

...a treaty on India's construction of the Farakkha Barrage, a dam that diverts the flow of the Ganges River into the Hooghly River during the dry season to flush silt from the port of Calcutta (WPISA, p. 167)

In this case, barrage and dam may not be qualified as an absolute synonym. They have some contrasts that differentiate them, and it causes an anomaly. Next, they are not categorized as cognitive synonym; they do not belong to the same reference, and are not identical. Finally, barrage and dam may only be categorized as near-synonym. They cannot be more synonymous in their relation. Here is the relation between both words:

40

Hyponymy

As shown above, barrage is type of dam; hence, barrage is subordinate because it is a hyponym, and then, dam is superordinate because it a hyperonym. Dam is a generic class of barrage. In addition, because they have hyponymy relation, they do not have meronymy relation. Barrage is not part of dam; as the result, it is neither meronym nor holonym.

They have are categorized as near-synonym because they are semantically not similar because barrage do not have all the semantic components in the componential specification of dam. Moreover, dam has the semantic component that is not shared with barrage such as [inanimate], [headworks], [barrier], [constructed across a waterway], and [controlling flow]. It makes barrage has the semantic components that are not shared with dam, which is [used for impounding water] that deal with the main function, and it is taken from the aspect of main function. It makes them categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.

Data 14

...in the promotion of a religious obligation to protect the Columbia River

watershed as an international basin. (HTER, p.51)

Main Function Superordinate

Subordinate Shape

(Hyperonym) Dam

Barrage (Hyponym)

Near-Synonymy (Contrast)

In this case, basin and watershed may not be categorized as absolute synonym, considering they have certain contrast that differentiate them. These contrasts will cause an anomaly. Next, they are also not qualified as cognitive synonym. They do not belong to the same reference, and they are not identical. In conclusion, they may only be categorized as near-synonym; they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Watershed as co-hyponym:

Hyponymy

Watershed as meronym:

Polysemic

Meronymy

Firstly, basin is a polysemy. Watershed has two meanings that are related to hydrologic. Firstly, basin acts as co-hyponym of watershed. Here, basin is not type of watershed, and watershed is not kind of basin. In the other hand, they are not hyponym or hyperonym. In conclusion, basin and watershed is not a superordinate or subordinate. Secondly, watershed is meronym, and basin acts as holonym. Watershed has a meaning as a part of basin. Here, basin means partly enclosed body of water.

(Meronym) Watershed

Basin (Holonym)

Shape Main Function Near-Synonymy

(Co-Hyponym) Watershed

Basin (Co-Hyponym)

42

Because classified as near-synonym, they are have some distinctions that deal with mainfunction and shape. First, in shape, basin has [dividing two areas],

and watershed has [holding liquids] as the contrastive component. Moreover,

when dealing with main function, they have [ridge of high land] for breakwater, and [enclosed area of a river] for seawall. This contrastive component causes the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

Data 15

Storms are rising, and the walls and levees are simply points... (E, p.36)

In this case, levee and wall are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the synonymy. They may not be categorized as an absolute synonym; thus, they have a contrast that makes them irreplaceable in a context. Moreover, they also may not be considered as cognitive synonym; they have a contrast, and as the result, they belong to different referent. Next, they may only be considered as near-synonym. They cannot be more synonymous that this. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

Shape Main Function Near-Synonymy

(Co-Hyponym) Levee

Wall (Co-Hyponym)

As shown above, leeve is kind of wall; hence, it may be concluded that levee is the subordinate of wall, and wall is superordinate of levee. Next, wall is a hyperonym, and levee is hyponym. Wall is the generic class of leeve. Furthermore, levee is not part of wall, and vice verse, considering they are not a meronym or holonym.

Because they have a contrast in their relation, they will ermerge the contrastive components. The contrastive components for levee and wall deals with

main function and shape. In main function, levee has [for regulating water levels],

meanwhile, for wall; it has [for separating space] as the contrastive component. And then for shape, wall has [a thin layer], and levee has [a thick embankment] as the contrastive component. This contrastive component causes the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

4.1.5 Watercourse as the Generic Class

Data 16

The water is diverted through a flume or millrace toward the steel and cast-iron waterwheel,,... (TG, p.80)

In this case, flume and millrace may not be categorized as an absolute synonym because they have a contrast in their relation; thus, this contrast will create an anomaly if each word is replaced by another word. Next, they may not be considered as cognitive. Both word have different referent, and the referent is not identical. After all they only qualified as near-synonym. They have a contrast

44

semnatically, and their relation cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

As shown above, flume is not kind of millrace, and millrace is not kind of

flume. Thus, they have no relation in hyperonym or hyponym. In conclusion,

flume and millrace are not a superordinate and subordinate. Because they belong

to same generic class, they can only be considered as co-hyponym. Moreover, flume is not part millrace; as the result, flume and millrace are not a meronym or holonym bcause they do not have part-whole relation.

Because they have a contrast in their relation, they will ermerge the contrastive component in which the component deals with main function. Next, when it deals with main function, as the contrastive component, flume has [for conveying logs], and [for driving a mill wheel] for millrace. This contrastive component causes the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

Data 17

Inadequate drainage and sewerage systems not only tainted the water supply but also subjected houses... (HARSITPS, p.30)

Main Function (Contrast)

Near-Synonymy (Co-Hyponym)

Flume

Millrace (Co-Hyponym)

In this case, drainage and sewerage are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the synonymy. They may not be classified as an absolute synonym. They have a contrast that differentiate them, and cause an anomaly if they are put alternately in a context. Next, they also may not be categorized as a cognitive synonym. They do not belong to the same reference, and are not identical physically. In conclusion, they are only qualified as near-synonym. They have a contrast in their relation, and they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

As shown above, sewerage is not part of drainage, and drainage is kind of

sewerage. Both belong to same generic class; as the result, it is not a hyperonym

or hyponym so they are not superordinate or subordinate. In addition, they do have meronomy relation, considering drainage is not part of sewerage, and vice verse.

Because they have a contrast in their relation, they will ermerge the contrastive components. The contrastive components for drainage and sewerage deals with main function. Drainage has the contrastive component, which is [for draining water], and sewerage obtains [for encompassing water] as the contrastive

Main Function (Contrast)

Near-Synonymy (Co-Hyponym)

Sewerage

Drainage (Co-Hyponym)

46

component. This minor semantic component creates the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

Data 18

...the extensive destruction of its road, canal, irrigation and logistical systems;... (AST, p.10)

In this case, sleet, rain and snow are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the semantic relations. Below are the relations among those words:

Words Hyponymy Synonymy

irrigation – canal Co-hyponym Near-synonym

road – canal Co-hyponym -

road – irrigation Co-hyponym -

As the table shown above, among those words there are only irrigation

and canal that are considered as synonym. They may not be catogorized as an

absolute synonym because they have a contrast that will cause an anomaly in their uses. Thus, canal and irrigation do not refer to same thing; hence, it is not included in cognitive synonym.. This minor difference may bring canal and

irrigation as near-synonym. As the result, canal and irrigation cannot become

Hyponymy

As shown above, irrigation is type of canal; as the result, irrigation is subordinate because it is a hyponym, and then, canal is superordinate because it is a hyperonym. Canal is a generic class of irrigation. In addition, because they have hyponymy relation, they do not have meronymy relation. Irrigation is not part of

canal; as the result, it is neither meronym nor holonym.

They have are categorized as near-synonym because they are semantically not similar because irrigation do not have all the semantic components in the componential specification of canal such as [inanimate], [watercourse], [waterway], [artificial] and [used for irrigation]. Moreover, canal has the semantic component that is not shared with irrigation. It makes canal has the semantic components that are not shared with irrigation, which is [used for shipping], and it is taken from the aspect of main function. It makes them categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.

Data 19

Butrint owes its importance throughout history to its excellent location on a bluff overlooking the Vivari Channel, an important waterway

connecting the Straits of Corfu... (AOA, p.18)

In this case, channel and waterway may not be categorized as an absolute synonym, because they have a contrast in their relation; thus, this contrast will

Superordinate

Subordinate

Main Function Canal

Irrigation (Hyponym)

Near-Synonymy (Contrast)

48

create an anomaly if each word is replaced by another word. Next, they may not be considered as cognitive synonym; thus, they do not belong to the same reference, and identically the referent is not the same. Next, they are only qualified as near-synonym, because they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

Next is the hyponymy relation between both words. Firstly, channel is type of waterway; hence, channel is subordinate because it is a hyponym, and then, waterway is superordinate because it a hyperonym. Waterway is a generic class of channel. In addition, because they have hyponymy relation, they do not have meronymy relation. Channel is not part of waterway; as the result, it is neither meronym nor holonym.

They are considered as near-synonym because they are semantically not similar or identical because waterway does not have all the semantic components in the componential specification of channel such as [inanimate], [watercourse], [canal], and [used as a means of travel or transport]. Moreover, channel has the semantic component that is not shared with waterway. It makes channel has the semantic component that are not shared with waterway, which is [for connecting

Superordinate

Subordinate

Main Function (Hyperonym)

Waterway

Channel (Hyponym)

Near-Synonymy (Contrast)

two bodies of water], and it is taken from the aspect of main function. It makes them categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.

4.1.6 Excavation as the Generic Class

Data 20

...much as waves on the surface of a swimming pool or pond distort the apparent position of something in the water. (HTIYI, p.60)

In this case, pond and pool are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the synonymy. They may not be catogorized as an absolute synonym because they have a contrast that will cause an anomaly in their uses. Thus, pond and pool do not refer to same thing; hence, it is not included in cognitive synonym. Pond and pool have a distinction on a scale of degree that distinguishes them. This minor difference may bring pond and pool as near-synonym. As the result, pond and pool cannot become more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

As shown above, pond is not hyponym or subordinate of pool, and conversely pond is not superordinate of pool. Pond is not types of pool; hence, it does not become hyponym as subclass. Thus, pond and pool have co-hyponymy relation because they belong to same generic class. In addition pond and pool do

Near-Synonymy (Contrast)

Main Function (Co-Hyponym)

Pool

Pond (Co-Hyponym)

50

not have meronymy relation. Pond is not a part of pool, and vice verse. Pond and pool is not a holonym and meronym.

Because they have a contrast that make qualified as near-synonym relation, they have the contrastive components which deal only with main

function. These contrasts make them different even though they are synonym and

cause the contrastive component. In main function, pond obtains [for fishing],and for pool, it gets [for water conservation] as the contrastive component. This minor semantic component creates the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

4.1.7 Liquid as the Generic Class

Data 21

... multiphase fluids such as raw sewage, sludge, slurries, tar sands, oil-water-gas mixtures and highly aerated fluids. (TF, p.44)

In this case, sewage, sludge, slurry, tar sands, oil-water-gas mixtures and

fluid are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the semantic relations.

Below are the relations among those words:

Words Hyponymy Synonymy

sewage - sludge Co-hyponym Synonym

sewage - slurry Co-hyponym -

sewage - tar sand Co-hyponym -

sewage - oil-water-gas mixture Co-hyponym -

sludge – slurry Co-hyponym -

sludge – tar sand Co-hyponym -

sludge - oil-water-gas mixture Co-hyponym -

sludge - fluid Co-hyponym -

slurry – tar sand Co-hyponym -

slurry - oil-water-gas mixture Co-hyponym -

slurry - fluid Co-hyponym -

tar sand - oil-water-gas mixture Co-hyponym -

tar sand - fluid Co-hyponym -

oil-water-gas mixture - fluid Co-hyponym -

As the table shown above, among those words there are only sewage and sludge that are considered as synonym. They may not be considered as absolute synonym. They have a distinction that differentiate them in certain aspect. These contrasts do not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. Next, sewage and sludge are not classified as cognitive synonym; they do not belong to same reference, and they are not identical. In conclusion, they may only be considered as near-synonym. They have certain contrast in their relationship that differentiate them, and make them categorized as near-synonym. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

Water Color Contained Material Near-Synonymy

(Co-Hyponym) Sewage

Sludge (Co-Hyponym)

52

As shown above, sewage is not hyperonym of sludge, and sludge is not hyponym of sewage. They belong to the same generic class; hence, sewage is not a subordinate of sludge, or sludge is not superordinate of sewage. That concept is not accepted. Sludge is not type of sewage, and vice verse. In conclusion, they have co-hyponymy relation. Moreover, they have no meronomy relation because

sludge is not part of sewage, and vice verse.

The last one is the distinction between both words. Both are considered as near-synonym, as a result, they have the contrastive component that deals with contained water, and water color. Firstly, when it deals with contained water, sludge has [deposit or sediment material] as the contrastive component, and [industrial material] for sewage. Last, in water color, word sludge has the contrastive component [black], and [green/grey] for sewage. These contrastive components create the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

Data 22

Future plans include building a biological wastewater treatment facility and greywater recycling system;… (ITAE, p.56)

In this case, wastewater and greywater are joined by the coordinating conjunction indicating the hyponymy, but both are synonymous. they do not have condition to be classified as absolute synonym. wastewater and greywater contain a contrast, and there are a scale of semantic distance. Simplicity, both words

cannot be equinormal in all contexts. In cognitive synonym, they may not be classified into it either. Both words do not belong to the same reference. Consequently, they may only be classified into near-synonym. They semantically cannot be more synonymous, and there is long scale of distance in their relationship. Here is the relation between both words:

Hyponymy

As shown above, wastewater and greywater have the hyponym relation. Greywater is a type of wastewater; as the result, greywater is hyponym and

wastewater becomes the hyperonym. Wastewater becomes the generic class of

greywater. Moreover, they do not have meronymy relation. Wastewater is not part

of greywater; hence, it is not a meronym or holonym.

They have are considered as near-synonym because they are semantically not similar because wastewater do not have all the semantic components in the componential specification of greywater such as [inanimate], [water], [liquid], [waste] and [sewage] . Moreover, greywater has the semantic component that is not shared with wastewater. It makes greywater has the semantic component that are not shared with wastewater, which is [chemical waste]. It makes them categorized as hyperonym and hyponym.

Superordinate

Subordinate

Contained Material (Hyperonym)

Wastewater

Greywater (Hyponym)

Near-Synonymy (Contrast)

54

4.1.8 Atmospheric Disturbance as the Generic Class

Data 23

Hurricanes (called typhoons in the western Pacific and tropical cyclones in the Indian Ocean) can propel themselves to an altitude of 50,000 feet or more,... (SSNEIS, p.66)

In this case, hurricane and typhoon may not be classified as an absolute synonym. They have contrasts in their certain aspect. These contrasts do not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. Next, both are not belong to the same reference, and not identical; hence, they may not be classified as cognitive synonym. Finally, they may only be considered as near-synonym. They have a contrast in their aspect so they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words

Hyponymy

As shown above, hurricane is not a hyperonym of typhoon, and typhoon is not hyponym of hurricane, meaning both is not subordinate or superordinate. Moreover, they belong to the same generic class. In conclusion, they have co-hyponymy relation. Hurricane is not type of typhoon, and typhoon is kind of

hurricane. In addition, they do not have meronymy relation, hurricane:typhoon

are not a holonym or meronym; hurricane is not part of typhoon, and vice verse. Near-Synonymy Occurrence

(Contrast) (Co-Hyponym)

hurricane

typhoon (Co-Hyponym)

Because they are included in near-synonym relation, they have certain contrasts, which deal with occurrence. These contrasts differentiate them in contrast and cause the contrastive component. In occurrence, hurricane has [in the China Seas], and for typhoon, it has [in the Atlantic Ocean] as the contrastive component. These contrastive components create the incompatibility in their relation; as the result, they have co-hyponym relation.

Data 24

But, like the transalpine foehn of central Europe, the chinook's warmth is enhanced... (RIATMAB, p. 469)

In this case, foenh and chinook may not be qualified as an absolute synonym. They have contrasts in their certain aspect. These contrasts do not make them exchangeable if they put on a context because it will cause an anomaly. Next, both are not belong to the same reference, and not identical; hence, they may not be classified as cognitive synonym. Finally, they may only be considered as near-synonym. They have a contrast in their aspect so they cannot be more synonymous. Here is the relation between both words

Hyponymy

As shown above, both is not subordinate or superordinate, considering

foehn is not a hyperonym of chinook, and chinook is not hyponym of foehn

Near-Synonymy Occurrence (Contrast)

(Co-Hyponym) Foehn

Chinook (Co-Hyponym)

76

rock. These generic class results many contrastive component that derive from

their aspect of meaning. There are various aspects of meaning in synonymous

words that emerge in two sentences i.e. shape, occurring, living plant, location,

main function, contained material, size and water color.

Additionally, there are several relations that emerge in this research such

as near-synonym, absolute synonym, cognitive synonym, hyponym, and

meronymy. In the single sentence, there are found near-synonymy, meronymy,

and hyponymy relation. Next, in the two sentences, there are found

near-synonymy, hyponymy, cognitive near-synonymy, and absolute synonymy.

5.2 Suggestions

In this research the writer particularly focuses on analyzing the contrastive

meaning in the synonymous word through the contrastive components.

Near-synonymy can be examined through three conditions, minor, backgrounded, or

both, and it is useful for students who want to analyze near-synonym more deeply.

Synonym may be analyzed through the sharing meaning in their semantic

specifications. Besides synonymy, there is also antonym that may be analyzed

from the relation of inclusion and exclusion whether it has contrastive or sharing

77

REFERENCES

Bowden, Charles. 2006. “Mother Jones”. Corpus America. 3 April 2011. <www.americancorpus.org/>

Cruse, Alan. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantic and

Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Collins, William. 2005. Collins Discovery Encyclopedia. UK. HarperCollins Publishers.

Cowen, Ron. 2005. “Science News”. Corpus America. 3 April 2011. <www.americancorpus.org/>

Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Harrison, Grant et al. 2009. “Journal of Environmental Health”. Corpus America. 3 April 2011. <www.americancorpus.org/>

Larson, Mildred L. 1984. Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross

Language Equivalence. New York: University Press of America.

Lyons, John. 1981. Language and Linguistic. London: Cambridge University. Lyons, John. 1981. Semantics: Volumes 1. London: Cambridge University. Mifflin, Houghton. 2009. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English

LanguageFourth Edition. New York. Houghton Mufflin Company.

Ratna, Nyoman Kutha. 2006. Teori, Metode, dan Teknik Penelitian Sastra. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Septiandra. 2009. The Analysis of Synonymous Business Terms in Fortune

Magazine (A Study of Semantics).Bandung: Indonesia University of Computer.

O’Grady, William.1987. Contemporary Linguistic: An Introduction. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.

Palmer, F.R. 1976. Semantics: 2nd Edition. London: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, Matthew. 2009. “Bycyling”. Corpus America. 3 April 2011. <www.americancorpus.org/>

78

Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Richtarcikova, Veronika. 2000. “Semantic of English.” National University of Loja. 15 June 2011. <http://sskkii.gu.se/eliza/NL-Lexical%20Semantics-eng.pdf>

i

Curriculum Vitae A. Personal Identity

1. Name : Riza Sembhara

2. Place and Date of Birth : Purwakarta/August 4th, 1988

3. Student Number : 63707014

4. Major : English department

5. Sex : Male

6. Nationality : Indonesia

7. Religion : Islam

8. Phone Number : -

9. Mobile Number : 085864646364

10.Address : Jl. Cihampelas no. 15b

11. Email Address : sembhara@gmail.com

12. Weight : 55 Kg

13. Height : 170 Cm

14. Marital Status : Single

15. Parents

1. Father : Andi Supandi

Occupation : Police

Address : Jl. Ipik Gandamanah No. 134

2. Mother : Heli Sulastri

Occupation : Housewife

Address : Jl. Ipik Gandamanah No. 134

B. Formal Education

No

INSTITUTIONS

YEAR

1 SD Tegal Munjul 1 Purwakarta 1995 - 2000

2 SMP N 5 Purwakarta 2000 - 2003

3 SMA 2 Purwakarta 2003 - 2006

ii

B. Experiences

No

Profession

Institution

Year

1 HIMA SAIS UNIKOM 2008-2009

Bandung, July 26th, 2011