Cover not available
Part of
English Historical Linguistics: Historical English in contact
Edited by Bettelou Los, Chris Cummins, Lisa Gotthard, Alpo Honkapohja and Benjamin Molineaux
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 359] 2022
► pp. 119–142

Chapter 7
Distributional changes in synonym sets

The case of fragrant, scented, and perfumed in 19th- and 20th-century American English

ORCID logo | University of Zaragoza

This chapter analyzes the diachronic development in 19th- and 20th-century American English of the synonyms fragrant, perfumed, and scented, which denote the concept sweet-smelling. Their distributional patterns are examined by means of conditional inference trees and collocational networks in order to (1) uncover distinctions in meaning between the synonyms and (2) determine the changes that the concept sweet-smelling has experienced and their effect on the relationship between the synonyms. Results indicate a significant split between entities denoting natural and artificial smells, associated with fragrant and perfumed, respectively. In turn, scented is common in both senses. Moreover, a significant increase of scented at the expense of fragrant and perfumed emerges over time, a fact which can be accounted for in terms of processes of attraction, differentiation, and ongoing replacement.

Keywords: near-synonymy, semantic change, diachrony, distributional semantics, attraction, differentiation, conditional inference trees, collocational networks, American English, sweet-smelling
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
    • 2.1Attributive uses
    • 2.2Collocations
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Conditional inference trees
    • 3.2Collocational networks
    • 3.3Discussion
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.359.07pet
References

Sources

CD = Collins Dictionary
2012– Collins. Online. Available at: [URL] (4 May, 2019.)
COHA = Davies, Mark
2010– The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. Available at: [URL] (4 May, 2019.)
LDOCE = Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
2015– Pearson. Online. Available at: [URL] (4 December, 2019.)
Lexico
2019 Oxford University Press. Online. Available at: [URL] (12 October, 2019.)
OED = Oxford English Dictionary (3rd edn.)
2000– Oxford University Press. Online. Available at: [URL] (4 May, 2019.)
Baker, Paul
2017 American and British English: Divided by a common language? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1977 Meaning and form (English Language Series II). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav, Tony McEnery & Stephen Wattam
2015 Collocations in context. A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2). 139–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Church, Kenneth. W. & Patrick Hanks
1990 Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1). 76–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem
2018 The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2). 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar
2010 Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th. Gries
2006 Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1). 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon 3(2). 188–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, John R.
1957 A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In John R. Firth (ed.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis, 1–32. Oxford: Philological Society.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
1986 On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics 5(4). 275–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2003 Testing the sub-test: An analysis of -ic and -ical adjectives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(1). 31–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Howard
1988 Words and their meanings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia
2015 How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Salience and construal in the use of synonymy: A study of two sets of near-synonymous nouns. Cognitive Linguistics 24(1). 67–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Dilin & Maggie Espino
2012 Actually, genuinely, really, and truly: A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonymous adverbs. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17. 198–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne
2003 Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy, and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan & Pieter Byloo
2015 Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 32(1). 34–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Yves, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts
2008 Size matters. Tight and loose context definitions in English word space models. In Marco Baroni, Stefan Evert & Alessandro Lenci (eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on distributional lexical semantics: Bridging the gap between semantic theory and computational linguistics, 34–41. Hamburg. [URL] (20 July, 2021)
Pettersson-Traba, Daniela
2021 A diachronic perspective on near-synonymy: The concept of sweet-smelling in American English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17(2), 319–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Primahadi-Wijaya-R, Gede & I Made Rajeg
2014 Visualising diachronic change in the collocational profiles of lexical near-synonyms. In I Nengah Sudipa & Gede Primahadi-Wijaya-R (eds.), Cahaya bahasa: A Festschrift in honour of Prof. I Gusti Made Sutjaja, 247–258. Denpasar: Swasta Nulus.Google Scholar
Sahlgren, Magnus
2006 The word-space model: Using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in high-dimensional vector spaces. Stockholm: Stockholm University Ph.D. thesis.
Samuels, Michael L.
1972 Linguistic evolution with special reference to English. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2008 Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy, 63–105. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. Harald Baayen
2012 Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R.
2003 Near synonyms as co-extensive categories: ‘high’ and ‘tall’ revisited. Language Sciences 25(3). 263–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turkkila, Kaisa
2014 Do near-synonyms occur with the same metaphors: A comparison of anger terms in American English. Metaphorik 25. 129–154.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988 The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar