Cover not available
Part of
Corpora and the Changing Society: Studies in the evolution of English
Edited by Paula Rautionaho, Arja Nurmi and Juhani Klemola
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 96] 2020
► pp. 3–28

The great temptation

What diachronic corpora do and do not reveal about social change

| University of Neuchâtel
This paper examines the potential large diachronic corpora hold for the study of social change. Resources such as COHA or Google Books allow us to detect shifts in the frequencies of linguistic elements, which can then be interpreted as reflections of developments in society. This paper addresses the practicalities of this question in two parts. The theoretical part surveys a series of problems that need to be controlled for in analyses of diachronic textual data. The second part implements these ideas in a study of the English make-causative over the past 150 years. Examining the variables of animacy and verb semantics, the study explores whether the diminishing social value of interpersonal authority is reflected in changing patterns of language use.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Five pitfalls in the analysis of diachronic corpus data
    • 2.1Corpus frequencies (semasiological frequencies) are not always equivalent to frequencies of entities and events in the real world (onomasiological frequencies)
    • 2.2Corpus frequencies of polysemous words need to be broken down into sense-specific and construction-specific frequencies
    • 2.3Correlations in large datasets may be spurious
    • 2.4Comparisons of frequency trends in diachronic corpora require adequate statistical treatment
    • 2.5It is not always easy to disentangle social change and linguistic change
  • 3.Giving in to temptation: A case study of the English make-causative
    • 3.1The English make-causative construction
    • 3.2Corpus data and descriptive statistics
    • 3.3Using distributional semantics to study the development of the make-causative
    • 3.4Discussion
  • 4.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 8 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.96.01hil
References (32)
References
Corpora
COCA = Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. <[URL]>
COHA = Davies, Mark. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English. <[URL]>
NOW = Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of News on the Web (NOW): 3+ billion words from 20 countries, updated every day. <[URL]>
Other references
Biber, Douglas. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4): 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2013. Das Ego in der Sprache. SprachLog, 12 August 2013, <[URL]> (31 December 2018).
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, Patricia M. 2009. Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology 45: 401–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. The changing psychology of culture from 1800 through 2000. Psychological Science 24: 1722–1731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2): 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions. A Usage-based Approach to Language Change [Constructional Approaches to Language 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames 8(1): 66–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Correia Saavedra, David. 2017. Using token-based semantic vector spaces for corpus-linguistic analyses: From practical applications to tests of theoretical claims. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. (ahead of print). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multi-stage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4): 385–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Perek, Florent. 2015. Meaning change in a petri dish: Constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts. Linguistics Vanguard 1(1): 339–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 2001. Causative constructions and cognitive models: The English make causative. In First Seoul International Conference on Discourse and Cognitive Linguistics: Perspectives for the 21st Century, 803–846. Seoul: Discourse and Cognitive Linguistics Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Koplenig, Alexander & Müller-Spitzer, Carolin. 2016. Population size predicts lexical diversity, but so does the mean sea level – one problem in the analysis of temporal data. PLOS ONE 11(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2013. The culturomic psychology of urbanization. Language Log, 18 August 2013, <[URL]> (31 December 2018).
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Shen, Yuan Kui, Presser Aiden, Aviva, Veres, Adrian, Gray, Matthew K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, Joseph P., Hoiberg, Dale, Clancy, Dan, Norvig, Peter, Orwant, Jon, Pinker, Steven, Nowak, Martin A., & Lieberman Aiden, Erez. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331 (6014): 176–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Wilson, Andrew. 2001. Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2016. Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics 54(1): 149–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2002. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York, NY: Viking.Google Scholar
Roberts, Seán & Winters, James. 2013. Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. PLOS ONE 8(8). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagi, Eyal, Kaufmann, Stefan & Clark, Brady. 2011. Tracing semantic change with latent semantic analysis. In Current Methods in Historical Semantics, Justyna Robynson & Kathryn Allan (eds), 161–83. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2016. About text frequencies in historical linguistics: Disentangling environmental and grammatical change. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(1): 153–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57(1): 33–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 27–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turney, Peter D. & Pantel, Patrick. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37: 141–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2000. Interpreting usage: Construing the history of Dutch causal verbs. In Usage-Based Models of Language, Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 261–286. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Carlette, Jean, Garretson, Gregory, Bresnan, Joan, Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, Nikitina, Tatiana, O’Connor, M. Catherine & Wasow, Tom. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Donna Byron & Bonnie Webber (eds), 118–125. East Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Gee, Matt, Andrew Kehoe & Antoinette Renouf
2024. Chapter 6. Establishing a ‘new normal’. In Crossing Boundaries through Corpora [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 119], ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Hiltunen, Turo, Turo Vartiainen & Jenni Räikkönen
2024. Democratisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 25:2 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Michaelis, Laura A.
2024. Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive. Constructions and Frames 16:2 ► pp. 278 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2024. Culture in a radically usage-based model of language change, with special reference to constructional attrition. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Kiyama, Naoki & Yoshikata Shibuya
2023. A Topic-Based Diachronic Account of the Polysemy of the English Verb ‘Run’. Research in Language 21:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Vartiainen, Turo & Minna Palander-Collin
2023. Chapter 6. From masters and servants to  employers  and employees . In Exploring Language and Society with Big Data [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 111], ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Li, Longxing, Vincent Xian Wang & Chu-Ren Huang
2022. Social Changes Manifested in the Diachronic Changes of Reform-Related Chinese Near Synonyms. In Chinese Lexical Semantics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13250], ► pp. 184 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 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.