2. Synonymy 2.1 Definition Synonymy can generally be defined as a linguistic term referring to lexical items which have the same or similar meanings. Synonymous words appear different but share the same or almost the same meanings. 2.2 Synonymy in Arabic 2.2. i Early vs Contemporary Arabic Linguists’ View of Synonymy The term synonymy, as it stands today, was not yet known to early Arabic linguists and lexicographers, and consequently not clearly defined by them. For example, Ibn Manzour (1999) holds that synonymy in language means succession (Vol. 5, p.189). Ibn Faris (1979), Al-Razy (1989), AlFaiyoumy (1978) and Al-Fairouzabady (1978) hold a similar view to that of Ibn Manzour (p. 503; p.210; p.86; p.139). Al-Fairouzabady adds that a synonym refers to names expressing the same thing (p.139). Unlike early Arabic linguists, contemporary Arabic linguists and scholars view synonymy more broadly. They point out that, for two words to be completely synonymous, they must have the same meaning, exist in the same language, and belong to the same era and age. Among those who apply the above criteria to define, assess and distinguish between synonymous and non-synonymous words are Anis, Bishr and Al-Garem (Al-Shaye, 1993, pp. 30-32). Anis (1984), for example, believes that true synonymy refers to words that share almost the same meaning and become identical by constant use (pp. 166-67). Consequently, any nuances of meaning among synonymous words push them to the periphery of complete synonymy.

2.2. ii Proponents vs Opponents of the Prevalence of Synonymy in Arabic The advocates of synonymy in Arabic maintain that more than one lexeme can share the same meaning and be used interchangeably in all contexts. Al-Ansary, Al-Asmaey, Sibawaih, Ibn Jinny, Al-Fairouzabady, Ibn Al-Mustansir, and Ibn Isma’el adhere to this view. Al-Ansary and Ibn Jinny, for example, consider it common to express one meaning with more than one lexeme (Al-Shaye, 1993, pp.46-49). In contrast, the opponents of synonymy in Arabic opine that no two words have absolutely the same meaning. However, they see that synonymous words can be used to illustrate one another. The supporters of this view include Al-Askary, Ibn Faris, Ibn Al-Araby and Al-Gaza’ery (AlShaye, 1993, p. 88). Al-Askary, for instance, dismisses the idea of complete or absolute synonymy. He argues that dissimilar words necessitate dissimilar meanings. He further points out that since a word can give a certain meaning, there is no need then to use another to give the same meaning (Al-Shaye, pp.106-07). Al-Askary seems to be right about his claim because the tendency to use two or more words to express the same thing is likely to bring about redundancy.

2. 2. iii Proponents vs Opponents of the occurrence of Synonymy in the Glorious Qur’an The debate over synonymy in the Arabic language in general has extended to the particular case of the Glorious Qur’an. In this regard, there are two teams vying with each other in their attempts to prove the strength of their theses. Those believing in the prevalence of absolute synonymy in the Qur’anic text include Ibn Al-Sukkeit, Al-Zubaidy, Al-Romany, Ibn Jinny, AlBaqlany, Ibn Sida, Al-Fairouzabady (Al-Zawbaey, 1995, p.5), Ibn Al-Athir, Ibn Al-Arabi, Al-Husseiny, Al-Salih, and Anis (Al-Shaye, 1993, p. 171). Ibn Al-Athir, for example, asserts the prevalence of absolute synonymy in the Qur’anic text and he exemplifies his view by citing the two Qur’anic words athab and rijz (generally meaning torment) which he believes to be absolutely synonymous. Al-Salih, a contemporary defender of synonymy, asserts the pervasiveness of absolute synonyms in the Qur’an and cautions against denying the idea of synonymy in Arabic (as well as in the Qur’an).He further claims that this may cast doubt upon the uniqueness and richness of this language. (Al-Shaye, pp.163-70). The view, however, that absolute synonymy occurs plentifully in the Qur’anic text contradicts the fact that words of the Qur’an have been selected very carefully to express very precise meanings whether connotative or denotative. The scholars who assert the abundance of absolute synonymy in Arabic in general deny its prevalence in the Qur’an since this for them is likely to undermine its excellence and uniqueness. However, among those denying the occurrence of absolute synonymy in the Qur’an are Ibn Taymiya, Al-Raghib Al-Asfahany, Al-Tabary, Ibn Attyah, Al-Zamakhshary, Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtuby, Al-Khataby, Al-Siyouty, and Bint Al-Shati’ (Al-Shaye, 1993, pp. 175-180). Al-Tabary, for instance, dismisses the notion of synonymy in the Qur’anic text. He distinguishes between the two Qur’anic lexemes sir and najwa (generally meaning secret ideas) that are thought to be completely synonymous. For him, sir is what one unfolds to one's self, whereas najwa is what one discloses to others. (Al-Shaye, p.195). Like AlTabary, Al-Zamakhshary (2009) confutes absolute synonymy in the Qur’an. He differentiates betweem bath and huzn (generally meaning sadness). For him, bath, unlike huzn, refers to extreme and unbearable sadness (p.528).Similarly, Bint Al-Shati’(1977), a contemporary scholar, dismisses the idea of absolute synonymy in the Qur’an. (Vol.1, p.167).

2.2. iv Types of Synonymy in Arabic Issa (2011) identifies three types of synonymy in Arabic, namely, complete synonymy, lexical synonymy and nominal synonymy. She explains that lexical synonymy refers to words that share the basic elements of conceptualization but differ in their shades of meaning (e.g. fam/thaghr for mouth). Although fam and thaghr refer to the same object, they cannot be used in all contexts (pp.26-27). Of the three types of synonymy mentioned above, lexical synonymy seems to imply near synonymy, the main concern of this study.

2.3 Synonymy in English 2.3. i Definition Synonymy is defined by many linguists in English as the sameness or the similarity in meaning (Palmer, 1981, p. 88; Crystal, 1993, p.340; Ghazala, 2002, p. 89 ). Harris (1973) adopts a similar view to those of Palmer, Crystal and Ghazala; moreover, he lists Collinson’s nine factors to differentiate between synonyms: 1. One term is more general and inclusive in its applicability; another is more specific and exclusive, e.g. refuse/ reject, seaman/sailor, ending/inflexion. 2. One term is more intense than another, e.g. repudiate/refuse. 3. One term is more highly charged with emotion than another, e.g. looming/emerging, luring/threatening. 4. One term may imply moral approbation or censure where another is neutral, e.g. thrifty/economical, eavesdrop/listen. 5. One term is more professional than another, e.g. decease/death, domicile/house

6. One term may belong more to the written language; it is more literary than another, e.g. passing/death. 7. One term is more colloquial than another, e.g. turn down/refuse. 8. One term is more local or dialectal than another, e.g. flesher/butcher 9. One term belongs to child-talk, is used by children or in talking to children, e.g. daddy, dad, papa/ father. (10)

Cooper (1979) and Jackson (1988) define synonymy in terms of the interchangeability of words in all contexts. Cooper sees that “two expressions are synonymous [. . .] if they may be interchanged in each sentence [. . .] without altering the truth value of that sentence” (p.167). Jackson, likewise, believes that synonymy refers to words which are substitutable in all contexts. He lists five ways to distinguish between synonyms: 1. Synonyms may persist in the vocabulary because they belong to different dialects, e.g., lift and elevator. 2. Synonyms may be differentiated by style or level of formality, e.g., climb and ascend. 3. Synonyms are differentiated in terms of technicality. We refer to some lexemes as technical vocabulary or jargon, e.g., cardiac/heart. 4. Synonyms may be differentiated as a result of connotation, e.g., love and adore. In fact, adore has connotations of passion or worship, which love does not share: love is the more neutral of the pair. 5. Euphemism is a fifth reason, e.g., die/ pass away. (pp. 65, 68)

2.3. iii Types of Synonymy in English According to Ishrateh (2006), four types of synonymy have been identified: Absolute synonymy, plesionymy (near synonymy), cognitive synonymy, and contextual-cognitive synonymy. Plesionymy refers to lexical items that share some, but not all, aspects of meaning, e.g., foggy and misty. As one may recall, Plesionymy, another name for near synonymy, is the main interest of this study. (pp.7-14)

3. Context and Synonymy Distinguishing between synonyms does not solely depend on linguistic criteria. Rather, it is connected for the most part with context, that is, the meanings of synonyms are largely determined by the contexts in which they occur. In particular, it is difficult to differentiate between most, if not all, synonyms in the Qur’an without recourse to the contexts in which they exist. Emphasizing the importance of context in translating synonyms, Issa (2011) says: “Among the factors translators need to pay attention to when translating […] comes the issue of context” (p. 30). It is not, she adds, the individual words that need to be explained but rather the deeper concept that lies in the surrounding elements that help the translator to choose the best contextual equivalent. The reason why most translators are likely to translate synonyms inaccurately is that they do not take heed of “context-based meanings” (Issa, pp. 32, 38). Therefore, if all else fails to make distinctions between synonyms, recourse to context as a means of differentiation is required