Which statement about the role of statistics in tracking semantic shift is accurate?

• A. It cannot reveal any patterns
• B. Corpus frequency data helps track shifts in usage over time
• C. Statistics alone prove causation
• D. It is unnecessary for language change studies

Answer: (B)

Statistics from large text collections let us see how meaning changes unfold over time. The strongest statement is that corpus frequency data helps track shifts in usage across decades because it provides concrete evidence of how often a word is used in different senses and in which contexts. By comparing texts from different periods, you can spot patterns such as a sense broadening, narrowing, or new senses emerging, and you can track how quickly these changes occur. For example, if a word starts appearing more often in tech-related contexts and with senses linked to new domains, that points to semantic shift and helps map its trajectory.

Statistics don’t prove why a change happens—correlation isn’t causation—so they’re not enough on their own to claim a causal link. They do, however, give reliable, empirical evidence of what is changing and how, which is essential for language-change studies. And this kind of quantitative evidence is not unnecessary; it complements historical, sociolinguistic, and contextual analysis to build a fuller picture of language evolution.