Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 21:1 (2016) ► pp. 48–79

A lectometric analysis of aggregated lexical variation in written Standard English with Semantic Vector Space models

| KU Leuven
| University of Freiburg
Lectometry is a corpus-based methodology that explores how multiple language-external dimensions shape language usage in an aggregate perspective. The paper combines this methodology with Semantic Vector Space modeling to investigate lexical variability in written Standard English, as sampled in the original Brown family of corpora (Brown, LOB, Frown and F-LOB). Based on a joint analysis of 303 lexical variables, which are semi-automatically extracted by means of a SVS, we find that lexical variation in the Brown family is systematically related to three lectal dimensions: discourse type (informative versus imaginative), standard variety (British English versus American English), and time period (1960s versus 1990s). It turns out that most lexical variables are sensitive to at least one of these three language-external dimensions, yet not every dimension has dedicated lexical variables: in particular, distinctive lexical variables for the real time dimension fail to emerge.
Keywords: lexis, Standard English, Semantic Vector Space models, lectometry, aggregation
Published online: 31 March 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.1.03rue
References
Biber, D
(1988) Variation acros Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27(1), 3–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, B
(2007) Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology, 11(1), 239–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
BNC Consortium
(2007) The British National Corpus (version 3, BNC xml edition). Distributed by Oxford University in Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.Google Scholar
Borin, L., & Saxena, A
(2013) Approaches to Measuring Linguistic Differences. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Church, K.W., & Hanks, P
(1990) Word association, mutual information and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22–29.Google Scholar
Cysouw, M
(2005) Quantitative methods in typology. In G. Altmann, R. Köhler, & R. Piotrowski (Eds.), Quantitative Linguistics: An International Handbook (pp. 554–578) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, J., & Mair, P
(2009) Multidimensional scaling using Majorization: SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 31(3), 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delaere, I., De Sutter, G., & Plevoets, K
(2012) Is translated language more standardized than non-translated language? Using profile-based correspondence analysis for measuring linguistic distances between language varieties. Target: An International Journal of Translation Studies, 24(2), 203–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dinu, G., Thater, S., Laue, S
(2012) A comparison of models of word meaning in context. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 611–615). Montréal, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Dunning, T
(1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Firth, J
(1957) A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955. In J.R. Firth (Ed.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis (pp. 1–32). Oxford, UK: Philological Society.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(2010) Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P
(1994) The Structure of Lexical Variation. Meaning, Naming, and Context. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D
(1999) Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat. Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Goebl, H
(1984) Dialektometrische Studien: Anhand italoromanischer, raetoromanischer und galloromanischer Sprachmaterialien aus AIS und ALF. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Grieve, J
(2007) Quantitative authorship attribution: An evaluation of techniques. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22(3), 251–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D
(2011) A statistical method for the identification and aggregation of regional linguistic variation. Language Variation and Change, 23(2), 193–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heeringa, W
(2004)  Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Groningen, Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Heylen, K., & Ruette, T
(2013) Degrees of semantic control in measuring aggregated lexical distances. In L. Borin & A. Saxena (Eds.), Approaches to Measuring Linguistic Differences (pp. 353–374). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heylen, K., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D
(2012) Looking at word meaning. An interactive visualization of Semantic Vector Spaces for Dutch synsets. Proceedings of the EACL 2012 Joint Workshop of LINGVIS & UNCLH (pp. 16–26). Avignon, France: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Hinrichs, L., Smith, N., & Waibel, B
(2010) A manual of information for the part-of-speech-tagged ‘Brown’ corpora. ICAME Journal, 341, 189–230.Google Scholar
Horan, C
(1969) Multidimensional Scaling: Combining observations when individuals have different perceptual structures. Psychometrica, 34(2), 139–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R
(1996) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W
(1969) Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English Copula. Language 45(4), 715–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Ash, S., & Boberg, C
(2006) The Atlas of North American English. Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B
(1978) Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society, 7(2), 171–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Navigli, R
(2012) A quick tour of word sense disambiguation, induction and related approaches. In Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science (SOFSEM) (pp. 115–129). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Nerbonne, J
(2009) Data-driven dialectology. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1), 175–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, J., & Kretzschmar, W
(2003) Introducing computational techniques in dialectometry. Computers and the Humanities, 37(3), 245–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pantel, P
(2003)  Clustering by committee. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta.
Peirsman, Y
(2010)  Crossing corpora. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven.
Peirsman, Y., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D
(2015) The corpus-based identification of cross-lectal synonyms in pluricentric languages. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(1), 54–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plevoets, K., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D
(2008) The distribution of T/V pronouns in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. In K. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages (pp. 181–210). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V.O
(1951) Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 601, 20–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reppen, R., Ide, N., & Suderman, K
(2005) American National Corpus (ANC). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Ruette, T
(2012)  Aggregating Lexical Variation: Towards large-scale lexical lectometry. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven.
Ruette, T., Geeraerts, D., Peirsman, Y., & Speelman, D
(2014) Semantic weighting mechanisms in scalable lexical sociolectometry. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Wälchli (Eds.), Aggregating Dialectology and Typology: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech, within and across Languages (205–230). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruette, T., & Speelman, D
(2014) Transparent aggregation of variables with individual differences scaling. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29(1), 89–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schler, J., Koppel, M., Argamon, S., & Pennebaker, J
(2006) Effects of age and gender on blogging. In Proceedings of 2006 AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Approaches for Analyzing Weblogs . Palo Alto, California.
Schneider, E
(1988) Qualitative vs. quantitative methods of area delimitation in dialectology: A comparison based on lexical data from Georgia and Alabama. Journal of English Linguistics 21(1), 175–212.Google Scholar
Seguy, J
(1971) La relation entre la distance spatiale et la distance lexicale. Revue de Linguistique Romane 351, 335–357.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J
(1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S., & Geeraerts, D
(2003) Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities, 371, 317–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M
(2002) Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 215–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B
(2011) Corpus-based dialectometry: A methodological sketch. Corpora, 6(1), 45–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Grammatical Variation in British English Dialects: A Study in Corpus-Based Dialectometry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Takane, Y., Young, F., & de Leeuw, J
(1977) Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 42(1), 7–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turney, P., & Pantel, P
(2010) From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 371, 141–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, B., & Szmrecsanyi, B
(2014) Introduction: The text-feature-aggregation pipeline in variation studies. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Wälchli (Eds), Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech (1–25). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wieling, M., & Nerbonne, J
(2011) Bipartite spectral graph partitioning for clustering dialect varieties and detecting their linguistic features. Computer Speech and Language, 25(3), 700–715. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wieling, M., Nerbonne, J., & Baayen, H
(2011) Quantitative social dialectology: Explaining linguistic variation geographically and socially. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23613. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woolhiser, C
(2005) Political borders and dialect divergence/convergence in Europe. In P. Auer & F. Kerswill (Eds.), Dialect Change. Convergence and Divergence in European Languages (pp. 236–262). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zauner, A
(1902)  Die romanischen Namen der Körperteile: Eine onomasiologische Studie. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Erlangen, Germany: Universität Erlangen.
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Danae Perez, Marianne Hundt, Johannes Kabatek & Daniel Schreier
2021.  In English and Spanish, Crossref logo
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2021.  In English and Spanish, ► pp. 184 ff. Crossref logo
Yao, Xinyue & Peter Collins
2019. Developments in Australian, British, and American English Grammar from 1931 to 2006: An Aggregate, Comparative Approach to Dialectal Variation and Change. Journal of English Linguistics 47:2 ► pp. 120 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.