A corpus based comparative analysis of two synonymous words: prohibit and forbid.

ABSTRACT

Pungki Ekopratomo Rusmayadi. (2016). A Corpus Based Comparative Analysis of Two Synonymous Words: Prohibit and Forbid. Yogyakarta English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Words with the same meaning are called synonym. There are two kinds of synonyms, absolute synonym and near-synonym. Most of synonyms are likely considered as near-synonym because fulfilling the conditions of absolute synonym is extremely hard. Whereas not all synonymous words can be substituted by other synonymous words but there is a central shared meaning between near-synonyms.

This study is concerned with a corpus-based analysis of two synonymous words prohibit and forbid. The first procedure of this study is comparing the definitions of the two synonymous words via three online available dictionaries which are The Macmillan Dictionary, The Collins American Dictionary and The Meriam Webster Dictionary. Second, the nominal collocation of the near-synonym is measured by raw frequency and MI-scores are examined via the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). The top lists of the nominal collocation are grouped into lexical patterns. The third, the stylistic variation of the near-synonym is investigated across the five different genres provided by the COCA (spoken, fiction, magazine, newspaper, and academic writing).

The findings showed that the synonymous words of prohibit and forbid have collocation differences and that synonymous words are not perfectly interchangeable. The existing dictionary definitions are overgeneralized. Hence the study suggests ways to complement the dictionary entries with more frequently used expressions and collocations. The word prohibit is likely used to describe something related to governmental-related things and used in more formal registers.Whereas forbid is frequently used in religion belief and used in more informal registers.

Key words: Near-synonym, Collocation, Stylistic variation

i

ABSTRAK

Pungki Ekopratomo Rusmayadi. (2016). A Corpus Based Comparative Analysis of Two Synonymous Words: Prohibit and Forbid. Yogyakarta:

Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, UniversitasSanata Dharma.

Kata-kata dengan arti yang sama disebut sinonim. Ada dua jenis sinonim,

absolute synonym dan synonym. Kebanyakan sinonim termasuk dalam near-synonym karena untuk memenuhi kondisi dari absolute near-synonym sangatlah sulit.

Disisi lain tidak semua kata sinonim bias digantikan dengan kata sinonim yang lain tetapi terdapat makna yang sama diantara sinonim tersebut.

Studi ini berkaitan dengan analisa corpus-based antara dua sinonim

prohibit dan forbid. Prosedur pertama dalam penelitian ini adalah

membandingkan definisi dari kedua kata tersebut melalui tiga kamus online yaitu

The Macmillan Dictionary, The Collins American Dictionary dan The Meriam Webster Dictionary. Kedua, gabungan kata dari sinonim yang diukur dengan

frekuensi mentah dan MI-score diteliti lewat Corpus of Contemporary American

English (COCA). Data teratas dari gabungan kata tersebut dikelompokkan

kedalam pola leksikal. Ketiga, gaya variasi dari sinonim tersebut diteliti lewat lima gaya yang berbeda yang disediakan oleh COCA (lisan, fiksi, majalah, surat kabar dan karyailmiah).

Hasil menunjukkan bahwa kata prohibit dan forbid memiliki perbedaan gabungan kata dan tidak bisa saling menggantikan secara sempurna. Penjelasan kamus yang sudah ada menunjukkan penjelasan yang terlalu general. Karena itu studi ini menyarankan untuk lebih melengkapi penjelasan kamus dengan ekspresi yang sering digunakan serta gabungan kata. Kata prohibit sering digunakan untuk menjelaskan sesuatu yang berhubungan dengan pemerintahan dan digunakan dalam gaya bahasa yang lebih bersifat formal. Sedangkan forbid sering digunakan untuk menjelaskan sesuatu yang berhubungan dengan agama dan kepercayaan dan digunakan dalam gaya bahasa yang lebih bersifat kurang formal.

Kata kunci: Near-synonym, Collocation, Stylistic variation

A CORPUS BASED COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

OF TWO SYNONYMOUS WORDS:

PROHIBIT AND FORBID

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN FINAL PAPER

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Pungki Ekopratomo Rusmayadi Student Number: 091214061

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2016

i

A CORPUS BASED COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

OF TWO SYNONYMOUS WORDS:

PROHIBIT AND FORBID

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN FINAL PAPER

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Pungki Ekopratomo Rusmayadi Student Number: 091214061

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

vi ABSTRACT

Pungki Ekopratomo Rusmayadi. (2016). A Corpus Based Comparative Analysis of Two Synonymous Words: Prohibit and Forbid. Yogyakarta. English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Words with the same meaning are called synonym. There are two kinds of synonyms, absolute synonym and near-synonym. Most of synonyms are likely considered as near-synonym because fulfilling the conditions of absolute synonym is extremely hard. Whereas not all synonymous words can be substituted by other synonymous words but there is a central shared meaning between near-synonyms.

This study is concerned with a corpus-based analysis of two synonymous words prohibit and forbid. The first procedure of this study is comparing the definitions of the two synonymous words via three online available dictionaries which are The Macmillan Dictionary, The Collins American Dictionary and The Meriam Webster Dictionary. Second, the nominal collocation of the near-synonym is measured by raw frequency and MI-scores are examined via the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). The top lists of the nominal collocation are grouped into lexical patterns. The third, the stylistic variation of the near-synonym is investigated across the five different genres provided by the COCA (spoken, fiction, magazine, newspaper, and academic writing).

The findings showed that the synonymous words of prohibit and forbid have collocation differences and that synonymous words are not perfectly interchangeable. The existing dictionary definitions are over generalized. Hence the study suggests ways to complement the dictionary entries with more frequently used expressions and collocations. The word prohibit is likely used to describe something related to governmental-related things and used in more formal registers. Whereas forbid is frequently used in religion belief and used in more informal registers.

Key words: Near-synonym, Collocation, Stylistic variation

vii

ABSTRAK

Pungki Ekopratomo Rusmayadi. (2016). A Corpus Based Comparative Analysis of Two Synonymous Words: Prohibit and Forbid. Yogyakarta:

Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Kata-kata dengan arti yang sama disebut sinonim. Ada dua jenis sinonim,

absolute synonym dan synonym. Kebanyakan sinonim termasuk dalam near-synonym karena untuk memenuhi kondisi dari absolute near-synonym sangatlah sulit.

Disisi lain tidak semua kata sinonim bisa digantikan dengan kata sinonim yang lain tetapi terdapat makna yang sama diantara sinonim tersebut.

Studi ini berkaitan dengan analisa corpus-based antara dua sinonim

prohibit dan forbid. Prosedur pertama dalam penelitian ini adalah

membandingkan definisi dari kedua kata tersebut melalui tiga kamus online yaitu

The Macmillan Dictionary, The Collins American Dictionary dan The Meriam Webster Dictionary. Kedua, gabungan kata dari sinonim yang diukur dengan

frekuensi mentah dan MI-score diteliti lewat Corpus of Contemporary American

English (COCA). Data teratas dari gabungan kata tersebut dikelompokkan

kedalam pola leksikal. Ketiga, gaya variasi dari sinonim tersebut diteliti lewat lima gaya yang berbeda yang disediakan oleh COCA (lisan, fiksi, majalah, surat kabar dan karya ilmiah).

Hasil menunjukkan bahwa kata prohibit dan forbid memiliki perbedaan gabungan kata dan tidak bisa saling menggantikan secara sempurna. Penjelasan kamus yang sudah ada menunjukkan penjelasan yang terlalu general. Karena itu studi ini menyarankan untuk lebih melengkapi penjelasan kamus dengan ekspresi yang sering digunakan serta gabungan kata. Kata prohibit sering digunakan untuk menjelaskan sesuatu yang berhubungan dengan pemerintahan dan digunakan dalam gaya bahasa yang lebih bersifat formal. Sedangkan forbid sering digunakan untuk menjelaskan sesuatu yang berhubungan dengan agama dan kepercayaan dan digunakan dalam gaya bahasa yang lebih bersifat kurang formal.

viii

You can close your eyes to the

things you don’t want to see,

But you can’t close your heart

to the things you don’t want

to feel

Johnny Depp

I dedicate this final paper to my mother, my father, my sister, my brother and

myself.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My greatest gratitude goes to Allah SWT, who always blesses me and makes me able to finish this final paper. Especially during the deterioration which I felt empty and nothing to do.

I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Carla Sih Prabandari, S. Pd., M. Hum., for her guidance and understanding which make me to have hope. I also thank her for her patience in guiding me as I become someone who was difficult to be found. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my parents, Rusinah, Jarot Teguh Wiratmaya and my little sister and brother Rheynalda Dewi Rusmayadi and Arya Saskara Putra Rusmayadi, for their kindness, warmth, understanding and trust that given to me. I would also give my appreciation to all PBI Lecturers for guiding, understanding and trusting me until finishing my final paper.

It is a fortune for having Titus, Angie and Soni to share a lot of joy and foolish moment when I felt nothing. Bayu, Dion and Erda also have their special moments with me. I would be nothing without them. I also thank to my PBI 2009 partner, Kristin, Briggita, Alex, Mas Anggit, Andre and Wira. Radio Istakalisa crew also became my spirit, Sila, Deli, Mas Joko, Mbak Maya, Mbak Ulfa, Mbak Vera, Ayub, Joe, Ana, Rico, Klara, Nidya, Aan, Arin, Mas Saum, Weri, Mutiara, and Mas Wijang. They always pushed and supported me to finish my final paper. I also thank to my new family, Jalu, Mulyan, Yudhek, Surya, Adri and Iyos. My sincere gratitude goes to Wisnu, Tiara, and Rena for

x

being good friends of mine and Chandra who helped me in the last minute before submitting my final paper. All PBI students batch 2009 especially class B for becoming a great comrade in collage.

Last, I would like to give my gratitude to Chintya Debby Chandra Kharisma, someone whom I met in early 2015. I learned so many lessons and from her, I could open my eyes to see this wide world. She got her part so I could finish my final paper.

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE ... Page i APPROVAL PAGES ...ii STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ...

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ...

ABSTRACT ... iv v vi

ABSTRAK ...vii DEDICATION PAGE ...viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... TABLE OF CONTENTS ...

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study ... B. Research Question ... C. Methodology ...

ix xi

1 5 5 CHAPTER II. DISCUSSION

A. Qualitative Analysis of The Dictionary Entries of The

Near-Synonyms ... 1. Definitions of Forbid ... 2. Definitions of Prohibit ... 3. Comparison of Definition ... B. Quantitative Analysis of The Dictionary Entries of The

Near-Synonyms ... 1. Frequency Pattern of Near-Synonym ... 2. Nominal Collocations Measured by Raw Frequencies ... 3. Nominal Collocations Measured by MI-score ... 4. Comparison of top list measured by raw frequency and

MI-score for each near-synonym ... 8 10 11 11 12 13 14 17 20

xii

5. Stylistic variation of the near-synonyms ...22

CHAPTER III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS

Conclusions ...24 REFERENCES ... APPENDICES ...

25 27

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of research background and research method. In the background, the writer tells the main topic and also gives the reason in choosing the topic. Problem formulation, problem limitation and purpose of the study are also stated. Meanwhile, the subject of the study as well as its procedure are discussed in the research method.

A. Background of the Study

Lyons (1995, p. 60) states that expressions with the same meaning are called synonym. He also states that there are two kinds of synonyms, near-synonyms and absolute-near-synonyms. Near-near-synonyms is expressions that more or less similar but not identical in meaning. Some examples of near-synonyms are

begin – start, allow – permit, and bear – carry. Two or more expressions can be called as absolute-synonyms if fulfilling the three following conditions:

1. All their meaning are identical 2. They are synonymous in all contexts

3. They are semantically equivalent on all dimension of meaning, descriptive and non-descriptive (Lyons, 1995).

By seeing those conditions it is hard to find absolute-synonym and it is extremely rare.

2

Most of the synonyms are likely to be near synonyms rather than absolute synonyms. Usually people substitute some synonymous words based on their habit in using a certain word and also their sense of the word (Lyons, 1995). Near-synonyms, as Cruse (1986, p. 267) defines them are “lexical items whose sense are identical in respect of central semantic traits, but differ in minor or peripheral traits.” Therefore, there will be central shared meanings between near-synonyms.

Usually near-synonyms are described and defined by using their neighboring lexical items which result in vague definitions since the differences in meaning of the synonyms are denied and the definitions imply that the near-synonyms are interchangeable. These inaccurate dictionary definitions present a particular difficulty for students of English as a foreigner language. Leitner (1993, p. 50) doubts that dictionaries come close to represent real English and that they give appropriate example to illustrate the meaning.

The Macmillan Dictionary, The Collins American Dictionary and The Merriam Webster Dictionary are chosen to define the near-synonyms. Those three dictionaries are available online and printed version. However in this study, the writer use the online version of the dictionary in order to maximize the use of online resources. The Macmillan Dictionary includes the British and American variety, The Collins American Dictionary and The Merriam Webster Dictionary are specialized in American variety.

This study is corpus based research. Therefore The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) which is the largest freely-available

corpus of English is the main source in this study. COCA is created by Mark Davies of Birmingham Young University and it provides 450 million words which collected from 1990 to 2015. It is divided among five registers which are spoken, fiction, magazines, newspapers, and academic text. The figure below is the appearance of COCA (corpus.byu.edu/coca/)

Figure 1.1 The Appearance of COCA

This study gets the data from COCA by writing the word prohibit and forbid in the word(s) section. Getting the collocation data by writes in the collocates section and filling the numbers after and before the collocations. On the below section there are the examples of the words. Furthermore, corpus based on

4

American text samples are selected due to the use of American-based dictionaries for the qualitative analysis of the near-synonyms.

Prohibit and forbid are selected in this study. COCA shows that prohibit

and forbid are two verbs that constantly used over years from 1990 to 2015. Although it is constantly used over years, the number of appearance is not really high compared to other verbs. Other verbs such as refuse appears more than seven thousand times, reject more than five thousand times, begin more than sixty thousand times, and start appears more than hundred thousand times. Those numbers are really high compared to the appearance number of prohibit and

forbid which is only reach two thousand times. In 2010 to 2015 those two words

appear in almost exact number. The word prohibit appears 195 times and forbid 196 times. Those facts are the reason of choosing those two verbs.

There are some benefits of conducting this study. First, the reader be aware of the existence of near-synonym and absolute synonym. This study will show information that not all synonymous words can be substituted by other synonym words. Second, the reader will understand the differences between words prohibit and forbid. Later this study will show the detailed information and data between words prohibit and forbid.

This study will answer one question by using two methods which are qualitative and quantitative analysis of the near-synonyms. The qualitative analysis is the interpretation of definitions of dictionary entries of the near-synonyms and the comparison of definition. Whereas the quantitative analysis

consists of frequency pattern of near-synonym, nominal collocations measured by raw frequencies, nominal collocations measured by MI-score, comparison list measured by raw frequency and MI-score and the stylistic variation of the near-synonym. COCA provides all the data of this quantitative analysis. As stated on the research background there is a central shared meaning between near-synonyms. For this present study, it is writer’s objective to identify these central and peripheral meanings.

B. Research Question

This study is focusing on verbs prohibit and forbid answering one problem formulation which is what are the collocation differences of synonymous words

prohibit and forbid?

B. Methodology

Research method applied in this study was divided into two parts. First the qualitative method and second the quantitative method.

The qualitative method of the study consist of the description of the dictionaries of near-synonyms prohibit and forbid. Meriam (2002) sataes that qualitative research is characterized by the search of meaning and understanding and it becomes the main instrument of data collection and analysis. Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010) states the goal of qualitative research is a whole picture and depth of understanding. Three online dictionaries were used in this study, there were The Macmillan Dictionary, The Collins American Dictionary and The Meriam Webster Dictionary. The data was collected from those three online

6

dictionaries, therefore content analysis was an appropriate method. As stated by Ary et al. (2010) that content analysis focuses on analysing and interpreting recorded material.

Quantitative research was important to compare synonymous words (Biber et al., 2002) and the objective of quantitative research was to gather numerical data. This study only used simple quantitative research that gatherting the data which were presented by frequency and precentage of the occurance of the synonymous words. The quantitative method which involves computation of collocations or experimental result was used in this study. It also can be seen in Church, Gale, Hanks, Hindle and Moon (1994) in which the verb request and ask

for were compared in terms of substitutability. Taylor (2002) also had some

studies which carried out experiments in order to test similarities and differences of near-synonyms. Taylor contrasted the adjective tall and high using acceptability rating task in which subject were asked to rate whether the use of these two adjectives was acceptable under different context. Taylor claimed that the dominant fixed landmark in both and the recessive dimentional uses for tall and positional uses for high meanings of two adjectives could be found.

First of all, The Macmillan Dictionary, The Collins American Dictionary and The Meriam Webster Dictionary were examined how they defined the synonyms. The description of the dictionaries pointed out the similarities or the central semantic traits and differences or peripheral semantic traits of the near-synonyms prohibit and forbid. If the near-near-synonyms were defined in terms of their neighbouring lexical items, this suggests that their semantic traits were overlap. If

they were not defined through none of their near-synonyms, this might indicate that they were not used synonymously and their semantic traits differ remarkably.

Second, the data in COCA was queried for the overall frequency patterns. The nominal collocations of the near-synonyms were examined and measured by raw frequencies and the Mutual Information (MI-score). The nominal collocations in this study focus on the left collocation which is as the subject of the near-synonyms. The MI-score above 3 suggest that two words often collocate with each other. In the present study, the MI-score is the only applied statistical measurement since the MI-score usually examines content words to which category adjectives belong as Liu (2010, p. 63) described. The result was sorted from the top list of the collocating nouns measured by raw frequency and compared the nouns to see if the adjectives modify the same words. Then the nouns were categorized into lexical groups which later were used for gathering more insights about the type of nouns the adjectives modify.

Third, the procedure was repeated but with the nominal collocations measured by MI-score. Top lists were created and the nouns were grouped into certain categories. Moreover, the top lists measured by raw frequency and by MI-score were compared and it was analyzed if the corpus research could confirm the definitions of the dictionary entries of the qualitative method.

The last, the register in which they nominal collocations most frequently occur was investigated. The top list of the nominal collocations of each of the adjectival near-synonyms measured by score was examined since the MI-score reveals more interesting aspects of the usage patterns and fixed expression.

8

CHAPTER II DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of review of related literature and findings. First the results of the qualitative analysis are outlined. Second, the outcome of the quantitative analysis is presented.

A. Qualitative Analysis of The Dictionary Entries of The Near-Synonyms Qualitative analysis is the interpretation of definitions of dictionary entries of the near-synonyms. Cruse (1986, p. 265) said that there are sets of words or lexical items which point towards a special similarity. Synonym, however as Cruse (2004, p. 154) has explained, it should not simply be considered as sameness of meaning because the analysis of identical meaning is unnecessary and redundant. Divjack (2006, p. 21) adds to the understanding of synonyms that if they describe one and the same situation, they name it different ways and they represent it from different perspectives. To avoid the assumption of the sameness of meaning, Cruse (2004) additionally suggests that there are some groups of synonyms which bear a closer semantic resemblance than other sets. Normally there are three kinds of synonym.

The first is absolute synonym, it is defined as lexical items which could be used interchangeable in all contexts. However, it is impossible to check all these contextual relations (Cruse; 1986, p. 268) and therefore if they exist they would be extremely uncommon (Cruse; 1986, p. 270).

The second is cognitive synonym. Cruse (1986, p. 270) defines cognitive synonyms as lexical items which have certain semantic properties in common. Semantic mode is a term used in addressing these semantic properties which divided into the propositional mode and the expressive mode. The propositional mode is expressed by the form of the sentence, if the sentence expresses a statement, question, command, exclamation etc. Whereas the meaning of propositional meaning is determined by the truth condition uttered in the sentence. The truth condition does not play a role in the expressive meaning of lexical item. Later Cruse (1986, p. 273) describes words are defined as cognitive synonyms if they share the propositional meaning but differ in their expressive modes.

The third is near-synonym. Cruse (1986, p. 285) states the third group of synonyms as plesionyms, whereas other experts (Edmonds & Hirts; 2002, p. 107; Storjohann; 2009, p. 2140) refer to them as near-synonyms. Cruse (1986, p. 285) contrast near-synonym from cognitive synonyms since they express different truth conditions in a given context. If two parallel structured sentences differ only in the use of the synonym, they are not mutually entailing. However, if the near-synonyms stand in a hyponymous relation, they can be unilaterally entailed. In this case, one part of the near-synonyms can be asserted but it denies the other part at the same time. Cruse (1986) gives examples to illustrate his assumptions:

“It wasn’t foggy last Friday – just misty. He was not murdered, he was legally

executed.”

Foggy and misty, as well as, murdered and executed are in hyponymous relation, are close in meaning and can be accounted as near-synonyms not as

10

cognitive synonyms. The boundaries between near-synonyms and non-synonyms are rather fuzzy because with increasing semantic differences the near-synonyms are converted into non-synonyms. Edmonds and Hirst (2002, p. 105) also stress the importance of observing the differences of near-synonyms. They emphasize

the implications, connotations and the speaker’s attitude which are added to the

basic dictionary meaning of the words. For a particular communicative situation it is crucial to use the adequate word which expresses precisely the meaning intended by the speaker and to find the right word. Near-synonym in contrast to absolute synonyms are not identical in meaning therefore there must be some nuances in meaning which make them different.

1. Definitions of Forbid

There are two main definitions according to The Macmillian Dictionary (MD) entry of forbid. The first definition is not allowing to do something against the rule or law. The second definition is to make something impossible or to prevent something from happening.

The Collins American Dictionary (CAD) defines three definitions of

forbid. The first definition clearly mentions the word prohibit. It indicates that

those two words have a shared central meaning and as Cruse (1986, p. 270) said that those two words are in hyponymous relation, close in meaning and can be accounted as near synonym. The second definition, The CAD also states the same definition as The MD which is to make impossible and prevent. The last definition that CAD define is to command or to stay away from something and exclude.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary (MWD) has the same definition with the other Dictionaries. Forbid is described as to proscribe from or as if from the position of one in authority and also prevent as if by an effectual command. 2. Definitions of Prohibit

The MD defines prohibit as to stop and prevent something from being done especially by making it illegal. Prohibit is defined as something related to law and authority. The CAD and MWD state the same definition by mentioning the word forbid in their definition. They also state the word prevent in defining

prohibit.

3. Comparison of Definition

In terms of comparing the dictionary entries, the lexical items are commonly defined by using one or more near-synonyms of the word. The following Table 2.1 illustrates this phenomenon. The first column states the synonym in question and the X in the following columns signify which near-synonyms are used to define the word in the first column.

Table 2.1 Near-synonyms explicitly stated in the definitions Words forbid prohibit prevent

forbid X X

prohibit X X

The table suggests that prohibit and forbid are defining each other. Forbid is defined by the word prohibit while prohibit is defined by the word forbid in the dictionary. Regarding to the three online dictionaries, The MD, CAD and MWD, those two words share another lexical item in their definition which is prevent. As Cruse (1986, p. 265) said that there are sets of words or lexical items which point

12

towards a special similarity called synonym. It appears that the word prevent also have a shared central meaning with prohibit and forbid. The word prevent is the most frequently stated near-synonym in the definitions. This could indicate that the meaning of prevent is the most diverse, consequently and more interchangeable. In order to have deeper understanding, the following is example of prevent which is lexical item of words prohibit and forbid shared.

[1] The cost of safety glass often prohibits its use in private buildings.

According to The MD, CAD and MWD, the word prohibit in the example is defined as to prevent something from happening or being done. Therefore

prohibit in the example could be replaced by the word forbid as the

near-synonyms share the same lexical item which is prevent.

Of course, the table is an overgeneralization but it helps to identify which words of the group of near-synonyms might have a closer relationship and might be more synonymous and interchangeable. In the next step, the collocations of the near-synonym are analyzed via the corpus research to verify these assumptions.

B. Quantitative Analysis of The Dictionary Entries of The Near-Synonyms This qualitative analysis part consists of the outcome of the corpus study. First, the results of the overall frequency pattern of the near-synonyms are stated. The second sub-chapter comprises the result of the analysis of the collocating nouns measured by MI-score are articulated. The previous result are compared, interpreted and combined with the dictionary definitions. The last subchapter

summaries the results of the investigation of the stylistic variation of the near-synonyms.

1. Frequency Pattern of Near-Synonym

The data stated below are based on the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Table 2.2 states the near-synonyms and their number of tokens as presented and divided into five different genres via the COCA.

Table 2.2 Near-synonyms explicitly stated in the definitions

all spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic forbid 1889 461 481 353 330 264 prohibit 2470 326 38 495 781 830

As can be seen in table 2.2, forbid has the highest number in fiction which means the word mostly appear in fiction genre. Academic writing has the lowest number so the word forbid appears least in academic writing genre. It appears clearly that there is a big difference in the number of prohibit divided into five genres. Prohibit has academic writing as the highest score reaching 830 and fiction is the lowest that only get 38, so prohibit mostly appears in academic writing and least in fiction. Although fiction is the highest appearance of forbid,

prohibit do not do the same thing, it has the lowest in fiction instead. However,

the total frequency information does not give any account of the usage patterns of the verbs and their differences in meaning. Therefore, the next step of the quantitative analysis includes the examination of the collocations.

14

2. Nominal Collocations Measured by Raw Frequencies

According to Sinclair (1991, p.115) the collocation properties of lexical items are intrinsic and crucial to their meaning. He calls this phenomenon idiom principle which he describes via collocations. Hoey (2005, p.2) defines collocations as property of language whereby two or more words seem to appear

frequently in each other’s company. Moreover, he states that collocations depict

what is natural in a language and what is used by the speaker and they do not replicate what is theoretically possible in the particular language. Additionally, Hoey (2005, p. 3) proclaims that collocations must not be confused with lexical co-occurrence, which he defines as co-occurrence of two or more words within a short space of each other. He also said that collocations are psychological association between words up to four words apart and evidenced by their occurrence together in corpora more often than is explicable in terms of random distribution. Therefore, he considers collocations as psycholinguistic phenomenon for which evidence can be found statistically in computer corpora.

Although the concept of lexical priming is usually associated with other fields of linguistics and psychology, Hoey (2005, p. 8) integrates the concept into corpus linguistics. In general, he claims that a word is acquired through encountering the lexical item in spoken or written text. Each time a person reencounters a word its co-text, the collocation, the grammatical pattern, the grammatical function, the associated meaning and pragmatics are mentally recorded. Furthermore, the mind subconsciously stores the genre, the style, the social situation and the textual positioning of the words are mentally combined.

Hoey (2005, p. 8) calls this process nesting. Lexical priming is an individual human product since every person has unique experiences with linguistic context. Therefore, not every speaker is primed in the same way. He asserts that corpus can only point towards the priming which is likely to be shared by a large number of speakers. As a consequence, lexical priming cannot be demonstrated directly by a corpus since a corpus does not represent an individual’s linguistic experience. However, when the origins of the text samples provided by a corpus are analyzed, the corpus permits assumptions about how a person might be primed by reading the specific genre and text type.

There are left and right collocations which appear before and after the word. While the nominal collocations in this study focus on the left collocation which is as the subject of the word prohibit and forbid. The data was collected from COCA and first of all the nominal collocations were investigated to discover the typical types of nouns which are modified by the near-synonyms. Table 2.3 states the top five of the nominal collocations of the two near-synonym words.

Table 2.3 Top lists of nouns modified most frequently by prohibit and forbid measured by raw frequencies

forbid prohibit god 779 laws 173 heaven 187 rules 124 laws 44 state 87 rules 41 states 86 amendment 15 regulations 84

16

As can be seen from the Table 2.3, prohibit and forbid share two nominal collocations which are laws and rules. This might indicate that their semantic traits are fairly similar. The following is the example of the usage of prohibit and

forbid collected from COCA.

[1] He cited laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and mentally ill.

[2] NCAA rules prohibit coaches form publicly discussing recruits until they sign,

[3] God forbid you need a Band-Aid for something. [4] Heaven forbid we be treated like we are visitors.

[5] The new rules forbid the use of genetic engineering for products labeled as organic

Based on the top list of the nouns which are modified most frequent by the near-synonym, the nominal collocates could be categorized into lexical patterns. Top six nouns measured by raw frequencies were divided into two semantic or lexical groups which are religion belief and governmental-related. The categorization of the nouns is included in table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Categorization of the top 8 nouns modified by the near-synonym into lexical patterns

religion belief governmental-related heaven laws

god rules

- state

- states

- amendment - regulations

The lexical patterns in reference to the near-synonyms reveal some interesting points. There are only two lexical patterns of the collocation nouns which are religion belief and governmental-related. The near-synonym forbid is not only used in governmental-related but also in religion belief. Whereas prohibit is only used in governmental-related lexical patterns.

The analysis of the nominal collocations of the near-synonyms revealed some interesting insights to the usage patterns. However Liu (2010, p. 64) states raw frequencies privilege words that have an overall high frequency in the corpus, yet it undervalues those have a lower general frequency but occur habitually with one of the near-synonyms. Therefore, the next step is to investigate and describe the nominal collocations measured by MI-score.

3. Nominal Collocations Measured by MI-score

The MI-score is a statistical measurement that indicates collocates of lexical items which have a rather low overall frequency in the corpus but which are co-occurring repeatedly with the node. An MI-score around 0 suggests that the two words do not collocate while a score of 3 or higher indicates that the two items often co-occur. Liu (2010 p. 74) states the MI-score is considered to be the most appropriate statistical measurement for this research because it favors the category of content words to which adjectives belong. The results were sorted by relevance which is the term in the COCA for the MI-score.

The collocation analysis for the near-synonyms measured by the MI-score ejected completely different nouns than the measurement with raw frequencies.

18

Table 2.5 depicts the top result of the nominal collocation analyses measured by MI-score.

Table 2.5 Top lists of nouns modified most frequently by prohibit and forbid measured by MI-score

forbid prohibit heaven 8.65 ordinances 8.07 god 7.51 regulations 6.81 laws 5.15 laws 6.71 amendment 4.59 statutes 6.69 rules 4.57 clause 6.06

Table 2.5 demonstrates that there is a single overlap of collocating nouns modified by the near-synonyms which is laws. We had two words with the collocations measured by raw frequencies which are laws and rules and only one with the MI-score which is laws. This indicates that each near-synonym has its specific nominal collocations which the definitions of the near-synonym in the dictionaries should include since it is evidence that the presumable near-synonyms are not all intersubstitutable but have their fixed collocations and expressions. For further deatail, the following is the example collected from COCA.

[1] They explain that local ordinances prohibit artificial lighting near beaches.

[2] Regulations prohibit her from stopping at any points. [3] Heaven forbid if he woke the girls!

[4] God forbid you try and dine downtown when one of our sports teams are playing.

There are the example of two top nouns based on MI-Score which collocate with

prohibit and forbid. The two top nouns of prohibit are ordinances and regulations,

whether nouns of forbid are heaven and god. Based on the top lists of the nouns which are modified most frequently by the near-synonym, it also could be categorized into lexical patterns. The top five nouns measured by MI-score were divided into two categories which are religion belief and governmental-related.

Table 2.6 Categorization of the top 9 nouns modified by the near-synonyms into lexical patterns

religion belief governmental - related heaven laws

god amendment

- rules

- ordinances - regulations - statutes

- clause

The development of lexical categories into which noun were divided demonstrates that the word prohibit and forbid are also used in the same way as suggested by the nominal collocation analyses measured by raw frequency. Religion belief and governmental-related are the two lexical items which suggested in the nominal collocation analyses measured by raw frequency and MI-score.

20

4. Comparison of top list measured by raw frequency and MI-score for each near-synonym

In this part comparisons are made between the top lists measured by raw frequency and by MI-score for each near-synonym and conclusions are drawn in reference to the definitions of the dictionary entries. First, the top list of forbid are considered and compared. The table below shows the top lists of forbid measured by raw frequency and MI-score.

Table 2.7 Top lists of forbid measured by raw frequency and MI-score raw frequency MI-score

god 779 heaven 8.65 heaven 187 god 7.51 laws 44 laws 5.15 rules 41 amendment 4.59 amendment 15 rules 4.57

The top list of nouns measured by raw frequency and MI-score shows almost the same nouns. There are two nouns in the raw frequency and MI-score which refer to religious belief which are god and heaven. Laws, rules and amendment are the nouns in raw frequency which refer to governmental-related. On the list of the MI-score also shows three nouns related to governmental-related which are laws, amendment and rules. Raw frequency and MI-score of forbid shows god and heaven are the top two nouns. The focus of the dictionary entries of forbid in terms of not allowing to do something against the rule was confirmed

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

22

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.

25

REFERENCES

Ary, D., Jacob, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to research in

education (8th ed.). Belmont: Wadswoth.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (2002). Corpus linguistics: Investigating

language structure and use. New York: Cambridge University Press

Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, Alan. (2004). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and

Pragmatics. (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Church, K. W., W. Gale, P. Hanks, D. Hindle, and R. Moon.1994. Lexical Substitutability,” in B. T. S. Atkins and A. Zampolli (eds.), Computational Approaches to the Lexicon, 153-177.

Divjak, Dagmar; Gries Stefan. (2006). “Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 23-60. Edmonds, Philip; Hirst, Graeme. (2002). “Near-synonymy and Lexical Choice”.

Computational Linguistics, 105-144.

Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantic. Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hoey, Michael. (2005). Lexical Priming. A new Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.

Leitner, Gerhard. (1993). “Where to Begin or Start? Aspectual Verbs in Dictionaries”. In Hoey, Michael. Data, description, discourse. Papers on the English language in honour of John Mch Sinclair on his sixtieth birthday. London: HarperCollins, 50-63.

Liu, Dilin. (2010). “Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern? A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1), 56-87.

Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.

McEnery, T & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistic: An Introduction. (2nd ed.). Edinburg University Press.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Example for discussion

26

Sinclair, John. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Storjohann, Petra. (2009). “Plesionymy: A case of synonymy or Contrast?”. Journals of Pragmatics, 2140-2158.

Taylor, J. R. (2002). “Near Synonyms as Co-extebsive Categories: „High‟ and „Tall‟ Revisited. Language Sciences, 25, 263-284.

27

APPENDIX 1

DICTIONARY ENTRIES OF THE NEAR-SYNONYM A. The Collins American Dictionary

28

30

32

APPENDIX 2

CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH A. Forbid

1. All Frequencies

all spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic

forbid 1889 461 481 353 330 264

1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2015

forbid 385 368 360 357 419

2. Collocation List Before Synonym Word

freq all MI

god 779 121865 8.50

heaven 187 13114 9.65

laws 44 37466 6.05

rules 41 48632 5.57

amendment 15 17600 5.59

regulations 13 16545 5.47

specifically 9 25918 4.29

constitution 8 20888 4.44

absolutely 8 49915 3.08

explicitly 7 6669 5.89

34

3. MI-score

freq MI

heaven 187 8.65

forbid 14 7.71

god 787 7.51

laws 47 5.15

discrimination 14 4.97

amendment 15 4.59

rules 41 4.57

regulations 13 4.47

happens 30 4.30

selling 13 3.78

should 148 3.37

4. Stylistic Variation

spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic

heaven 55 50 32 43 7

forbid 8 4 2 - -

god 316 241 111 84 35

Allah - 2 1 1 1

hmos - - 5 - -

laws 8 3 18 8 10

same-sex - - - 4 1

discrimination 2 - 4 2 6

explicitly - - 3 2 2

clause - - 2 1 2

amendment 2 - 4 2 7

rules 3 4 9 20 5

gods - 4 - - 1

B. Prohibit

1. All Frequencies

all spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic

prohibit 2470 326 38 495 781 830

1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2015

prohibit 637 571 442 384 436

2. Collocation List Before Synonym Word

freq all MI

would 342 1210028 3.61

laws 173 37466 7.64

does 137 420718 3.82

rules 124 48632 6.78

state 87 331955 3.50

states 86 246428 3.91

regulation 84 16545 7.78

law 77 138577 4.59

bill 60 126264 4.36

government 52 225768 3.32

36

3. MI-score

freq MI

ordinances 10 8.07

expressly 12 7.92

discriminating 10 7.68

restrict 28 7.43

discriminatory 11 7.22

discrimination 75 7.00

regulations 86 6.81

laws 181 6.71

statutes 13 6.69

discourage 13 6.42

clause 15 6.06

4. Stylistic Variation

spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic

ordinances 1 - 3 4 2

expressly 2 - - 2 8

importation 1 - 1 1 4

discriminating 2 - 1 2 5

restrict 3 - 5 4 16

discriminatory - - 3 - 8

clauses - - - 4 4

discrimination 8 - 15 11 41

regulations 9 1 23 25 28

treason - - - 1 5

punishments - - - - 6

laws 38 3 33 63 44

statutes 2 - 2 2 7

APPENDIX 2

CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH

A. Forbid

1. All Frequencies

all spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic forbid 1889 461 481 353 330 264

1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2015 forbid 385 368 360 357 419

2. Collocation List Before Synonym Word

freq all MI

god 779 121865 8.50

heaven 187 13114 9.65

laws 44 37466 6.05

rules 41 48632 5.57

amendment 15 17600 5.59

regulations 13 16545 5.47

specifically 9 25918 4.29

constitution 8 20888 4.44

absolutely 8 49915 3.08

explicitly 7 6669 5.89

3. MI-score

freq MI

heaven 187 8.65

forbid 14 7.71

god 787 7.51

laws 47 5.15

discrimination 14 4.97

amendment 15 4.59

rules 41 4.57

regulations 13 4.47

happens 30 4.30

selling 13 3.78

should 148 3.37

4. Stylistic Variation

spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic heaven 55 50 32 43 7

forbid 8 4 2 - -

god 316 241 111 84 35

Allah - 2 1 1 1

hmos - - 5 - -

laws 8 3 18 8 10

same-sex - - - 4 1

discrimination 2 - 4 2 6

explicitly - - 3 2 2

clause - - 2 1 2

amendment 2 - 4 2 7

rules 3 4 9 20 5

B. Prohibit

1. All Frequencies

all spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic prohibit 2470 326 38 495 781 830

1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2015 prohibit 637 571 442 384 436

2. Collocation List Before Synonym Word

freq all MI would 342 1210028 3.61

laws 173 37466 7.64

does 137 420718 3.82

rules 124 48632 6.78

state 87 331955 3.50

states 86 246428 3.91

regulation 84 16545 7.78

law 77 138577 4.59

bill 60 126264 4.36

government 52 225768 3.32

3. MI-score

freq MI

ordinances 10 8.07

expressly 12 7.92

discriminating 10 7.68

restrict 28 7.43

discriminatory 11 7.22

discrimination 75 7.00

regulations 86 6.81

laws 181 6.71

statutes 13 6.69

discourage 13 6.42

clause 15 6.06

4. Stylistic Variation

spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic ordinances 1 - 3 4 2

expressly 2 - - 2 8

importation 1 - 1 1 4

discriminating 2 - 1 2 5

restrict 3 - 5 4 16

discriminatory - - 3 - 8

clauses - - - 4 4

discrimination 8 - 15 11 41

regulations 9 1 23 25 28

treason - - - 1 5

punishments - - - - 6

laws 38 3 33 63 44