Semantic Shifts of Psychological Concepts in Scientific and Popular Media Discourse: A Distributional Semantics Analysis of Russian-Language Corpora

Conceptual metaphors guide our thinking and actions by allowing us to reason about more abstract experiences (e.g., paying taxes) in terms of more concrete or embodied experiences (e.g., carrying a physical load) (Lakoff and Johnson, 2011). It follows that different conceptual metaphors can result in different reasoning: framing paying taxes as an investment in a community rather than a physical load leads to a very different outlook on taxation. Identifying the conceptual metaphors guiding a speaker or writer thus helps to reveal their framing of events. Though these metaphors can't be observed directly, groups of linguistic metaphors, metaphorical expressions as they appear in language, serve as evidence for them. Motivated by this, we present an unsupervised method that extracts linguistic metaphors from a corpus and uses a structured clustering approach to form groups corresponding to conceptual metaphors. Using this method, we point to key topical and framing differences in left- vs. right-leaning podcasts. For example, left-leaning podcasts tend to conceptualize media stories as a weapon, while right-leaning sources commonly discuss the economy as a system subject to vertical changes.

Identifying technological trends is a core scientometric task, yet traditional frequency-based approaches struggle to capture substantial meaning shifts of domain-specific terms. We hypothesise that contextual embeddings can complement frequency dynamics to effectively track diachronic semantic change. We compare frequency and embedding-based approaches across Astrophysics and NLP corpora spanning from 2010 to 2024. Candidate terms are extracted using KeyBERT (utilizing SciBERT as its underlying language model) and filtered for significant frequency increases using Fisher's exact test. These terms are then evaluated for genuine semantic shift by domain experts to establish ground-truth labels. To quantify semantic drift, each term's contextual embedding ''clouds'' from the two discrete periods are compared using multiple metrics: cosine distance, average pairwise distance, Hotelling-type T 2 , and maximum mean discrepancy. Results indicate that frequency-based methods align slightly better with human judgments of ''trend-related terms'' than semantic metrics (Precision@50 of 0.62 vs 0.60 in Astrophysics). The two signals show a correlation of around 0.6. Several terms identified exclusively by embedding metrics (e.g., ''primordial black holes'') represent critical conceptual developments invisible to pure frequency analysis. These findings indicate that semantic metrics may capture complementary information, highlighting the value of integrating contextual embeddings into scientometric trend analysis.

An increasing number of disciplines recognize the explanatory potential of meaning-bearing mental structures through which individuals interpret the world and guide their behavior. Concept representations constitute a core class of these structures, emerging from individuals' experiences with concept referents and encoding and organizing their understanding of them. Recognizing a private level of meaning, where concepts are not objectively defined by rules in the world but constitute subjective structures in individuals' minds, raises a fundamental question: do different individuals actually mean the same thing when they invoke the same concept? As latent structures, concept representations are difficult to access and model empirically. The present study introduces a measurement framework that makes such representations empirically accessible through textual traces elicited under standardized conditions. Using transformer-based sentence embeddings, the framework maps standardized responses elicited for concepts into a high-dimensional shared vector space, opening concept representations to the systematic analysis of interindividual variation. It develops three analytical avenues: (1) comparing representational sharedness across concepts, (2) identifying variables that correlate with representational variation, and (3) examining how focal actors or subpopulations deviate from a reference population. Each avenue is illustrated through an empirical proof-of-concept drawing on a large-scale free-association dataset. Together, the demonstrations show how researchers from across disciplines can move from a research question and data source to analysis and interpretation. An accompanying GitHub repository provides a ready-to-use implementation of the framework for existing and custom datasets.