Cover not available
Part of
English Historical Linguistics: Historical English in contact
Edited by Bettelou Los, Chris Cummins, Lisa Gotthard, Alpo Honkapohja and Benjamin Molineaux
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 359] 2022
► pp. 119–142

Chapter 7
Distributional changes in synonym sets

The case of fragrant, scented, and perfumed in 19th- and 20th-century American English

ORCID logo | University of Zaragoza
This chapter analyzes the diachronic development in 19th- and 20th-century American English of the synonyms fragrant, perfumed, and scented, which denote the concept sweet-smelling. Their distributional patterns are examined by means of conditional inference trees and collocational networks in order to (1) uncover distinctions in meaning between the synonyms and (2) determine the changes that the concept sweet-smelling has experienced and their effect on the relationship between the synonyms. Results indicate a significant split between entities denoting natural and artificial smells, associated with fragrant and perfumed, respectively. In turn, scented is common in both senses. Moreover, a significant increase of scented at the expense of fragrant and perfumed emerges over time, a fact which can be accounted for in terms of processes of attraction, differentiation, and ongoing replacement.
Keywords: near-synonymy, semantic change, diachrony, distributional semantics, attraction, differentiation, conditional inference trees, collocational networks, American English, sweet-smelling
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
    • 2.1Attributive uses
    • 2.2Collocations
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Conditional inference trees
    • 3.2Collocational networks
    • 3.3Discussion
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.359.07pet
References (34)
Sources
CD = Collins Dictionary. 2012–. Collins. Online. Available at: [URL] (4 May, 2019.)
COHA = Davies, Mark. 2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. Available at: [URL] (4 May, 2019.)
LDOCE = Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2015–. Pearson. Online. Available at: [URL] (4 December, 2019.)
Lexico. 2019. Oxford University Press. Online. Available at: [URL] (12 October, 2019.)
OED = Oxford English Dictionary (3rd edn.). 2000–. Oxford University Press. Online. Available at: [URL] (4 May, 2019.)
References
Baker, Paul. 2017. American and British English: Divided by a common language? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form (English Language Series II). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav, Tony McEnery & Stephen Wattam. 2015. Collocations in context. A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2). 139–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Church, Kenneth. W. & Patrick Hanks. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1). 76–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem. 2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2). 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar. 2010. Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th. Gries. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1). 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon 3(2). 188–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, John R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In John R. Firth (ed.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis, 1–32. Oxford: Philological Society.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1986. On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics 5(4). 275–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Testing the sub-test: An analysis of -ic and -ical adjectives. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(1). 31–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Howard. 1988. Words and their meanings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Dilin. 2010. Is it a chief, main, major, primary or principal concern? A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1). 56–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Salience and construal in the use of synonymy: A study of two sets of near-synonymous nouns. Cognitive Linguistics 24(1). 67–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Dilin & Maggie Espino. 2012. Actually, genuinely, really, and truly: A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonymous adverbs. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17. 198–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy, and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan & Pieter Byloo. 2015. Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 32(1). 34–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Yves, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. Size matters. Tight and loose context definitions in English word space models. In Marco Baroni, Stefan Evert & Alessandro Lenci (eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on distributional lexical semantics: Bridging the gap between semantic theory and computational linguistics, 34–41. Hamburg. [URL] (20 July, 2021)
Pettersson-Traba, Daniela. 2021. A diachronic perspective on near-synonymy: The concept of sweet-smelling in American English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17(2), 319–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Primahadi-Wijaya-R, Gede & I Made Rajeg. 2014. Visualising diachronic change in the collocational profiles of lexical near-synonyms. In I Nengah Sudipa & Gede Primahadi-Wijaya-R (eds.), Cahaya bahasa: A Festschrift in honour of Prof. I Gusti Made Sutjaja, 247–258. Denpasar: Swasta Nulus.Google Scholar
Sahlgren, Magnus. 2006. The word-space model: Using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in high-dimensional vector spaces. Stockholm: Stockholm University Ph.D. thesis.
Samuels, Michael L. 1972. Linguistic evolution with special reference to English. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2008. Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy, 63–105. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. Harald Baayen. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Near synonyms as co-extensive categories: ‘high’ and ‘tall’ revisited. Language Sciences 25(3). 263–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turkkila, Kaisa. 2014. Do near-synonyms occur with the same metaphors: A comparison of anger terms in American English. Metaphorik 25. 129–154.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar