Which option would NOT be typical evidence for language change?

• A. The color of the ink in manuscripts
• B. Historical senses from dictionaries
• C. Corpora frequency data
• D. Varied textual contexts across periods

Answer: (D)

The main idea is that evidence for language change comes from linguistic data—how meaning and usage shift over time—rather than material details of manuscripts. The color of the ink in manuscripts isn’t about how the language itself changes; it’s a physical artifact, not linguistic evidence.

Historical senses from dictionaries show semantic shifts as meanings broaden, narrow, or shift over time, which is exactly the kind of linguistic change researchers track. Corpora frequency data give observable changes in how often forms are used across periods, offering quantitative support for change in usage patterns.

Varied textual contexts across periods can hint at how language is used in different situations, but on its own it isn’t decisive evidence of a change in the linguistic system; it can reflect genre, audience, or author choices as well. So that option would not be typical, standalone evidence for language change.