Abstract :

Environmental discourse frequently employs the near-synonymous verbs protect, preserve, and conserve to describe forms of ecological stewardship. Although the three verbs share a broad semantic domain, their actual distribution may reveal differences in collocational behavior and semantic preference. This study investigates the collocational profiles and semantic preferences of protect, preserve, and conserve in contemporary environmental English using a specialized 10-million-word corpus, the Contemporary Environmental English Corpus (CEEC-10M), comprising policy and treaty documents, academic environmental writing, and environmental journalism published between 2016 and 2026. Using AntConc 4.2, the study examines the target verbs and their recurrent collocates within a symmetrical L5-R5 window. Candidate collocates are filtered using a minimum raw-frequency threshold of 15 and an MI threshold of 4.5, followed by concordance inspection and semantic categorization. The results indicate three partially overlapping but distinguishable lexical profiles. Protect shows a broad preference for vulnerable people, species, habitats, ecosystems, and other entities conceptualized as exposed to harm or external pressure. Preserve is more strongly associated with biodiversity, cultural heritage, integrity, historical sites, and existing ecological or cultural states, suggesting a preference for continuity and maintenance. Conserve is particularly associated with water resources, energy, natural resources, soil, and ecosystems, reflecting a stronger orientation toward resource management and sustainable use. The findings demonstrate that near-synonymous verbs cannot be adequately distinguished through dictionary definitions alone. Corpus evidence provides a more precise account of their preferred lexical and semantic environments and offers implications for Environmental English, English for Specific Purposes, and advanced EFL vocabulary instruction.

---

Keywords :

collocation, corpus linguistics, environmental English, near-synonymy, semantic preference

---

References :

1. Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In Studies in linguistic analysis (pp. 1–32). Philological Society.
2. Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 249–268.
3. Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology (pp. 157–176). John Benjamins.
4. McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University
5. Partington, A., Duguid, A., & Taylor, C. (2013). Patterns and meanings in discourse: Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies. John Benjamins.
6. Sinclair, (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
7. Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. Routledge.
8. Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Blackwell.