Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2023) ► pp.1–34

Tracing semantic change in Portuguese

A distributional approach to adversative connectives

| Indiana University
| Indiana University
| Indiana University
| Cornell University
This study uses word embeddings to investigate the semantic changes underlying the creation of two adversative connectives in Portuguese, porém and mas ‘but, however’. For porém, we chart its development from an original PP formed by a preposition with a causal meaning (por) and a demonstrative pronoun that referred anaphorically to a previous proposition (en(de)). For mas, we trace its change from an adverb meaning ‘more’. Adopting a distributional semantics approach, we use word embedding models trained on two corpora, the CIPM (Corpus Informatizado do Português Medieval, containing texts from the 12th–16th centuries) and COLONIA (containing texts from the 16th–20th centuries). We produce a measure of change based on the similarity scores of porém and mas with respect to words in relevant semantic categories in each corpus, representing the source and the target meanings. This paper, which constitutes the first computational study of semantic change in Portuguese, also discusses challenges and outlines steps to be taken into consideration when choosing embedding algorithms for small historical corpora.
Keywords: semantic change, Portuguese, adversative connectives, distributional semantics, word embeddings
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Adversative connectives in Portuguese
    • 2.1 Porém
    • 2.2 Mas
    • 2.3Motivating the current study
  • 3.Distributional semantics and word embeddings
    • 3.1Choice of word embedding algorithm
    • 3.2Similarity scores
    • 3.3Experimental setting for this study
    • 3.4Objectives of the current study
  • 4.Corpora used
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Semantic domains
    • 5.2Similarity to semantic domains over time: Porém
    • 5.3Similarity to semantic domains over time: Mas
    • 5.4Comparison with a “true negative”
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.21028.ama
References (67)
References
Antoniak, Maria & David Mimno. 2018. Evaluating the Stability of Embedding-Based Word Similarities. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 61.107–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi, Jon Willits & Michael N. Jones. 2016. Comparing Predictive and Co-Occurrence Based Models of Lexical Semantics Trained on Child-Directed Speech. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Bechara, Evanildo. 2009. Moderna gramática portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Gramar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Castillo Lluch, Mónica. 1993. Acercamiento a las partículas adversativas medievales. Cahiers d’Etudes Hispaniques Médiévales 18:1.219–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corominas, Joan & José Antonio Pascual. 1980–1991. Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico, Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep, Sorina Postolea & Jaqueline Visconti. 2019. Contrastive Markers in Contrast. Discours 251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald & Carlos Vogt. 1979. De magis à mais: une hypothèse sémantique. Revue de Linguistique Romane Lyon 43:171–172.317–341.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinosa Elorza, Rosa María. 2007. Aspectos generales de la evolución de las expresiones adversativas: Cambios en cadena. Medievalia 391.1–30.Google Scholar
. 2018. La formación de los marcadores sumativos en español. Desde sobresto hasta a mayores . Estudios Humanísticos Filología 401.95–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2016. Toward a Typology for Additive Markers. Lingua 1801.69–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, William L., Jure Leskovec & Dan Jurafsky. 2016. Diachronic Word Embeddings Reveal Statistical Laws of Semantic Change. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 1489–1501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1954. Distributional Structure. Word 10:2–3.146–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Nathan S., Erick R. Fonseca, Christopher D. Shulby, Marcos V. Treviso, Jessica S. Rodrigues & Sandra M. Aluısio. 2017. Portuguese Word Embeddings: Evaluating on Word Analogies and Natural Language Tasks. In XI Brazilian Symposium in Information and Human Language Technology and Collocated Events.Google Scholar
Hellrich, Johannes. 2019. Word Embeddings: Reliability and Semantic Change. PhD dissertation. Jena University.
Hellrich, Johannes, Sven Buechel & Udo Hahn. 2019. Modeling Word Emotion in Historical Language: Quantity Beats Supposed Stability in Seed Word Selection. In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computation Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, Johann B. & Anton Szantyr. 1965. Lateinkche Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Hu, Hai, Patrícia Amaral & Sandra Kübler. 2021. Word Embeddings and Semantic Shifts in Historical Spanish: Methodological Considerations. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huber, Joseph. 1986 [1933]. Gramática do Português Antigo. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. (Translated by Maria Manuela Gouveia Delille.)Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel & James H. Martin. 2019. Speech and Language Processing. [URL]
König, Ekkehard. 1989. On the Historical Development of Focus Particles. Sprechen mit Partikeln ed. by Harald Weydt, 318–329. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2017. Syntax and Semantics of Additive Focus Markers from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Focus on Additivity: Adverbial Modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic Languages ed. by Anna-Maria De Cesare & Cecelia Andorno, 23–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000. Causal and Concessive Clauses: Formal and Semantic Relation. Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann, 341–360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutuzov, Andrei, Murhaf Fares, Stephan Oepen & Erik Velldal. 2017. Word Vectors, Reuse, and Replicability: Towards a Community Repository of Large-Text Resources. In Proceedings of the 58th Conference on Simulation and Modelling, 271–276. Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
Lenci, Alessandro. 2018. Distributional Models of Word Meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics 41.151–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, Omer, Yoav Goldberg & Ido Dagan. 2015. Improving Distributional Similarity with Lessons Learned from Word Embeddings. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 31.211–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Machado, José Pedro. 1952. Dicionário etimológico da língua portuguesa: com a mais antiga documentação escrita e reconhecida de muitos dos vocábulos estudados. Lisboa: Editorial Confluência.Google Scholar
Martelotta, Mário Eduardo Toscano. 2008. Gramaticalização de conectivos portugueses: uma trajetória do espaço para o texto. Estudos Linguísticos/Linguistic Studies 21.41–60.Google Scholar
. 2011. The Conclusive Clause in Portuguese: An Approach Combining Grammaticalization Theory and Construction Grammar Theory. Letras & Letras 27.1. [URL]
Mattos e Silva, Rosa Virginia. 1984. Pero e porém: Mudanças em curso na fase arcaica da língua portuguesa. Boletim de Filologia. Lisboa XXIX1.129–151.Google Scholar
. 1994. O Português Arcaico. Morfologia e sintaxe. São Paulo: Contexto.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina. 2008. Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, Caterina & Anna Giacolone Ramat. 2012. The Development of Adversative Connectives in Italian: Stages and Factors at Play. Linguistics 50:2.191–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzoleni, Marco. 2015. Connettori, grammatica e testi: Ma e (ben) sì tra costrutti avversativi, sostitutivi e preconcessivi. Testualità. Fondamenti, unità, relazioni, 171–188. Florence: Franco Cesati Editore.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1935. Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
. 1923. Grammaire des langues romanes. New York: Stechert. (Reprint of the 1890–1896 edition by Paris: H. Welter).Google Scholar
Mikolov, Tomas, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado & Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. Proceedings of ICLR, Scottsdale, AZ.Google Scholar
Mira Mateus, Maria Helena, Ana Maria Brito, Inês Duarte & Isabel Hub Faria. 2003. Gramática da língua portuguesa. Lisboa: Caminho.Google Scholar
Neves, Maria Helena de Moura. 1984. O coordenador interfrasal mas – invariância e variantes. Alfa: Revista de Linguística 281.21–42.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Maria Tolskaya. 2001. A Grammar of Udihe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orlandini, Anna. 2001. Négation et argumentation en latin. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
Peres, João & Salvador Mascarenhas. 2006. Notes on Sentential Connections (Predominantly) in Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 51.113–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramat, Anna Giacolone & Caterina Mauri. 2008. From Cause to Contrast: A Study in Semantic Change. Studies on Grammaticalization ed. by Elisabeth Verhoeven, Stavros Skopeteas, Yong-Min Shin, Yoko Nishina & Johannes Helmbrecht, 303–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo Buzaglo Paiva, Maria Fernanda Bacelar do Nascimento, Maria Antónia Coelho da Mota, Luísa Segura & Amália Mendes. 2013. Gramática do Português. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.Google Scholar
Robinson, Laura C. 2008. Dupaningan Agta: Grammar, Vocabulary, and Texts. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Hawai’i.
Rodman, Emma. 2020. A Timely Intervention: Tracking the Changing Meanings of Political Concepts with Word Vectors. Political Analysis 28:1.87–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodda, Martina A., Marco S. G. Senaldi & Alessandro Lenci. 2017. Panta Rei: Tracking Semantic Change with Distributional Semantics in Ancient Greek. IJCoL. Italian Journal of Computational Linguistics 3:3–1.11–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, João, António Branco, Steven Neale & João Silva. 2016. LX-DSemVectors: Distributional Semantics Models for Portuguese. In Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language. PROPOR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9727. ed. by João Silva, Ricardo Ribeiro, Paulo Quaresma, André Adami & António Branco, 9–27. Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, Ruan Chaves, Jéssica Rodrigues, Pedro Vitor Quinta de Castro, Nádia Felix Felipe da Silva & Anderson Soares. 2020. Portuguese Language Models and Word Embeddings: Evaluating on Semantic Similarity Tasks. In Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference, PROPOR 2020, Évora, Portugal, March 2–4, 2020 ed. by Paulo Quaresma, Renata Vieira, Sandra Aluísio, Helena Moniz, Fernando Batista & Teresa Gonçalves, 1–23. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Somolinos, Amalia. 1996. Pourtant pour autant.: Une évolution divergente. La lingüística francesa: Gramática, historia, epistemología 165–174. Grupo Andaluz de Pragmática.Google Scholar
Rong, Xin. 2014. word2vec Parameter Learning Explained. arXiv preprintGoogle Scholar
Sagi, Eyal, Stefan Kaufmann & Brady Clark. 2012. Tracing Semantic Change with Latent Semantic Analysis. Current Methods in Historical Semantics ed. by Kathryn Allan and Justyna A. Robinson, 161–183. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sahlgren, Magnus & Alessandro Lenci. 2016. The Effects of Data Size and Frequency Range on Distributional Semantic Models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 975–980. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ali, Manuel Said. 1971. Gramática Histórica da Língua Portuguesa. São Paulo: Melhoramentos.Google Scholar
Schlechtweg, Dominik, Barbara McGillivray, Simon Hengchen, Haim Dubossarsky & Nina Tahmasebi. 2020. SemEval-2020 Task 1: Unsupervised Lexical Semantic Change Detection. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, 1–23.Google Scholar
Silva, Tatiana Mazza da. 2010. Gramaticalização de juntivos adversativos na história do Português. MA thesis. São José do Rio Preto. DOI logo
Silveira Bueno, Francisco da. 1963. Grande dicionário etimológico-prosódico da língua portuguesa. São Paulo: Edição Saraiva.Google Scholar
Stilo, Donald. 2004. Coordination in Three Western Iranian Languages: Vafsi, Persian and Gilaki. Coordinating Constructions ed. by Martin Haspelmath, 269–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tahmasebi, Nina, Lars Borin & Adam Jatowt. 2018. Survey of Computational Approaches to Lexical Semantic Change. arXiv:1811.06278v2 [cs.CL]Google Scholar
Tang, Xuri. 2018. A State-of-the-Art of Semantic Change Computation. Natural Language Engineering 24:5.649–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 2010. Why Contrast Matters: Information Structure in Gawwada (East Cushitic). The Expression of Information Structure: A Documentation of its Diversity Across Africa ed. by Ines Fileder & Anne Schwarz 315–347. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2001. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsakalidis, Adam, Marya Bazzi, Mihai Cucuringu, Pierpaolo Basile & Barbara McGillivray. 2019. Mining the UK Web Archive for Semantic Change Detection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2019), 1212–1221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1995. “The Formal Semantics of Grammaticalization.” Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 25 – Volume Two: Papers from the Workshops on Language Acquisition & Language Change, Article 14.Google Scholar
Zampieri, Marcos, Shervin Malmasi & Mark Dras. 2016. Modeling Language Change in Historical Corpora: The Case of Portuguese. In Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 4098–4104.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

JARRETT, DYLAN & PATRÍCIA AMARAL
2023. Usage‐Based Approaches to Semantic Change. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 435 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.