Synonyms should be placed on a scale of synonymity where different degrees of semantic overlap could emerge. Thus we can speak of synonyms and near-synonyms depending on the number of semantic properties a pair of words shares. Consequently, we can distinguish between cognitive synonyms and near-synonyms. Cognitive synonyms, on the one hand, are words that share the propositional or semantic content to the effect that one cannot deny one word while affirming the other. For example, the pairs pass away/die and put out/issue are cognitive synonyms in the pairs of sentences below: John‟s grandfather passed away/ died yesterday. The government will be putting out/ issuing important information tomorrow. In the examples above, we cannot say the following sentences: ? John‟s grandfather didn‟t pass away yesterday; he only died. ? The government will not be putting out important information tomorrow; it will just issue it. The anomaly or semantic ill-formedness of the sentences above is an immediate consequence of denying a word while affirming its cognitive synonym. On the other hand, near-synonyms are different from cognitive synonyms by the fact that they bring forth or give sentences with different propositional content. Thus the pairs foggy/misty and murder/execute are near-synonyms rather than cognitive synonyms in that we can deny one while affirming the other. The sentences below illustrate this: It wasn‟t foggy yesterday; it was just misty. Peter was not murdered; he was legally executed. Clearly, “mistiness” is a lower degree of “fogginess” and “an execution” is legal, while “a murder” is illegal.
