Dissemination Dynamics of Receding Words: A Diachronic Case Study of Whom

We explore the relationship between word dissemination and frequency change for a rapidly receding feature, the relativizer whom. The success of newly emerging words has been shown to correlate with high dissemination scores. However, the reverse—a correlation of lower dissemination scores with receding features—has not been investigated. Based on two established and two newly developed measures of word dissemination—across texts, linguistic environments, registers, and topics—we show that a general correlation between dissemination and frequency does not obtain in the case of whom. Different dissemination measures diverge from each other and show internally variable developments. These can, however, be explained with reference to the specific sociolinguistic history of whom over the past 300 years. Our findings suggest that the relationship between dissemination and word success is not static, but needs to be contextualized against different stages in individual words’ life-cycles. Our study demonstrates the applicability of large-scale, quantitative measures to qualitatively informed sociolinguistic research.

[1]  Gregory R. Guy,et al.  On the Choice of Relative Pronouns in English , 1995 .

[2]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[3]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Register, Genre, and Style , 2019 .

[4]  Linda Reichwein Zientek,et al.  Book Review: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications , 2007 .

[5]  Julia Hockenmaier,et al.  Beefmoves: Dissemination, Diversity, and Dynamics of English Borrowings in a German Hip Hop Forum , 2012, ACL.

[6]  Mark Davies Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) , 2010 .

[7]  Wiebke Wagner,et al.  Steven Bird, Ewan Klein and Edward Loper: Natural Language Processing with Python, Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit , 2010, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[8]  Geoffrey Leech,et al.  Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study , 2009 .

[9]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Variation across speech and writing: Methodology , 1988 .

[10]  A. Bhattacharyya On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by their probability distributions , 1943 .

[11]  Michael Röder,et al.  Exploring the Space of Topic Coherence Measures , 2015, WSDM.

[12]  Adilson E. Motter,et al.  Identifying Trends in Word Frequency Dynamics , 2013, ArXiv.

[13]  Natural selection in the modern english lexicon , 2018 .

[14]  Bas Aarts,et al.  Relative whom: a 'mischief-maker' , 2002 .

[15]  Christian Mair,et al.  Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation and Standardization , 2006 .

[16]  Douglas Biber Variation across speech and writing: Variation across Speech and Writing , 1988 .

[17]  C. Habel,et al.  Language , 1931, NeuroImage.

[18]  Howard Lasnik,et al.  The Who/Whom Puzzle: On The Preservation Of An Archaic Feature , 2000 .

[19]  Lars Hinrichs,et al.  Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause , 2014 .

[20]  F. Aarts RELATIVE WHO AND WHOM: PRESCRIPTIVE RULES AND LINGUISTIC REALITY , 1994 .

[21]  J. Grieve,et al.  Analyzing lexical emergence in Modern American English online 1 , 2016, English Language and Linguistics.

[22]  William A. Kretzschmar,et al.  Language and Complex Systems , 2015 .

[23]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Register as a predictor of linguistic variation , 2012 .

[24]  Peter Norton,et al.  Python , 2019, login Usenix Mag..

[25]  Lauren Squires From TV Personality to Fans and Beyond: Indexical Bleaching and the Diffusion of a Media Innovation , 2014 .

[26]  Petr Sojka,et al.  Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora , 2010 .

[27]  Adilson E. Motter,et al.  Niche as a Determinant of Word Fate in Online Groups , 2010, PloS one.

[28]  Axel Bohmann,et al.  Variation in English Worldwide , 2019 .

[29]  Jacob Eisenstein,et al.  Making “fetch” happen: The influence of social and linguistic context on nonstandard word growth and decline , 2018, EMNLP.

[30]  Leo Egghe Untangling Herdan's law and Heaps' law: Mathematical and informetric arguments , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[32]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Register, Genre, and Style: Analytical framework , 2009 .

[33]  B. Thompson Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications , 2004 .