Verbs change more than nouns: a bottom-up computational approach to semantic change

Linguists have identified a number of types of recurrent semantic change, and have proposed a number of explanations, usually based on specific lexical items. This paper takes a different approach, by using a distributional semantic model to identify and quantify semantic change across an entire lexicon in a completely bottom-up fashion, and by examining which distributional properties of words are causal factors in semantic change. Several independent contributing factors are identified. First, the degree of prototypicality of a word within its semantic cluster correlated inversely with its likelihood of change (the “Diachronic Prototypicality Effect”). Second, the word class assignment of a word correlates with its rate of change: verbs change more than nouns, and nouns change more than adjectives (the “Diachronic Word Class Effect”), which we propose may be the diachronic result of an independently established synchronic psycholinguistic effect (the “Verb Mutability Effect”). Third, we found that mere token frequency does not play a significant role in the likelihood of a word’s meaning to change. A regression analysis shows that these effects complement each other, and together, cover a significant amount of the variance in the data.

[1]  Richard B. Dasher,et al.  Regularity in Semantic Change: Index of languages , 2001 .

[2]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Language, Usage and Cognition , 2010 .

[3]  Dirk Geeraerts,et al.  Cognitiv e restrictions on the structure of semantic change , 1985 .

[4]  Stéphane Polis,et al.  Contexts and Inferences. The grammaticalization of the Later Egyptian Allative Future , 2014 .

[5]  Eyal Sagi,et al.  Semantic Density Analysis: Comparing Word Meaning across Time and Phonetic Space , 2009 .

[6]  D. Gentner,et al.  Language acquisition and conceptual development: Individuation, relativity, and early word learning , 2001 .

[7]  Zellig S. Harris.  Transfer Grammar , 1954, International Journal of American Linguistics.

[8]  William Croft,et al.  Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective , 2001 .

[9]  Laura A. Michaelis.  Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion* , 2004 .

[10]  D. Gentner,et al.  SOME INTERESTING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VERBS AND NOUNS , 1981 .

[11]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality , 2013, NIPS.

[12]  Yulia Tsvetkov,et al.  A bottom up approach to category mapping and meaning change , 2015, NetWordS.

[13]  Adrienne Lehrer.  The influence of semantic fields on semantic change , 1985 .

[14]  Peter D. Turney.  Similarity of Semantic Relations , 2006, CL.

[15]  Richard Waltereit,et al.  Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis: a Semantic- Pragmatic Account of Functional Change in Grammar , 2002 .

[16]  Stefan Th. Gries,et al.  Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions , 2003 .

[17]  Quoc V. Le,et al.  Exploiting Similarities among Languages for Machine Translation , 2013, ArXiv.

[18]  Dirk Geeraerts,et al.  Theories of Lexical Semantics , 2010 .

[19]  M. Haspelmath,et al.  On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization , 2004 .

[20]  Regine Eckardt.  APO : Avoid Pragmatic Overload , 2009 .

[21]  Yoav Goldberg,et al.  A Dataset of Syntactic-Ngrams over Time from a Very Large Corpus of English Books , 2013, *SEMEVAL.

[22]  Martin Hilpert,et al.  Meaning change in a petri dish: constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts , 2015 .

[23]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change , 2008 .

[24]  Eve Sweetser,et al.  From Etymology to Pragmatics: Preface , 1990 .

[25]  Maik Moeller,et al.  Historical And Comparative Linguistics , 2016 .

[26]  M. Haspelmath,et al.  Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies , 2010 .

[27]  Bernd Heine,et al.  On the role of context in grammaticalization , 2002 .

[28]  Ira Noveck,et al.  What can historical linguistics and experimental pragmatics offer each other? , 2015 .

[29]  Tasneem Hameed,et al.  Change. , 2018, The Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association.

[30]  Martin Hilpert,et al.  Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony , 2006 .

[31]  Robert J. Menner.  Multiple Meaning and Change of Meaning in English , 1945 .

[32]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space , 2013, ICLR.

[33]  J. Firth,et al.  Papers in linguistics, 1934-1951 , 1957 .

[34]  V Bochkarev,et al.  Universals versus historical contingencies in lexical evolution , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[35]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  The Verb Mutability Effect: Noun and Verb Semantics in English and Japanese , 2006 .

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

[37]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  The Verb Mutability Effect: Studies of the Combinatorial Semantics of Nouns and Verbs , 1990 .

[38]  W. Bruce Croft.  Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories , 2000 .

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

[40]  Stéphane Polis,et al.  On the Pragmatics of Subjectification: Emergence and Modalization of an Allative Future in Ancient Egyptian , 2010 .

[41]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language , 2006 .

[42]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World , 1994 .

[43]  Humayun Rashid,et al.  Language of Change , 2008, AMCIS.