title: The scope of usage-based theory.
abstract: Usage-based approaches typically draw on a relatively small set of cognitive processes, such as categorization, analogy, and chunking to explain language structure and function. The goal of this paper is to first review the extent to which the "cognitive commitment" of usage-based theory has had success in explaining empirical findings across domains, including language acquisition, processing, and typology. We then look at the overall strengths and weaknesses of usage-based theory and highlight where there are significant debates. Finally, we draw special attention to a set of culturally generated structural patterns that seem to lie beyond the explanation of core usage-based cognitive processes. In this context we draw a distinction between cognition permitting language structure vs. cognition entailing language structure. As well as addressing the need for greater clarity on the mechanisms of generalizations and the fundamental units of grammar, we suggest that integrating culturally generated structures within existing cognitive models of use will generate tighter predictions about how language works.
authors: The Open University UK.
authors: Paul
authors: P
authors: Ibbotson
keywords: cultural learning; language processing; language-acquisition; typology; usage-based
references: J Child Lang. 1990 Feb;17(1):85-99
references: 2312647
references: Cognition. 2012 Mar;122(3):306-29
references: 22208785
references: Child Dev. 2007 May-Jun;78(3):741-5
references: 17517001
references: J Mem Lang. 2007 Nov;57(4):544-569
references: 18978929
references: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2011 May;2(3):323-335
references: 26302080
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 27;364(1528):2417-28
references: 19620112
references: J Theor Biol. 2001 Jan 7;208(1):79-89
references: 11162054
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 2003 Nov;32(6):669-92
references: 14653013
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Feb;60(2):161-70
references: 17455051
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Apr 12;366(1567):1080-9
references: 21357230
references: J Child Lang. 2005 May;32(2):249-68
references: 16045250
references: Psychol Sci. 2009 May;20(5):578-85
references: 19389131
references: J Child Lang. 2014 May;41(3):705-23
references: 23714767
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Mar 18;100(6):3531-5
references: 12631700
references: Cognition. 2002 Mar;83(2):B35-42
references: 11869728
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 27;364(1528):2405-15
references: 19620111
references: Cogn Sci. 2009;33(4):547-582
references: 19662108
references: Mem Cognit. 1997 Jul;25(4):425-37
references: 9259621
references: Cognition. 1998 Aug;68(1):1-76
references: 9775516
references: J Exp Psychol. 1971 Sep;90(1):65-74
references: 5096129
references: Cogn Sci. 2009 Sep;33(7):1317-29
references: 21585507
references: Cognition. 1994 Aug;52(2):125-57
references: 7924201
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2008 Oct;31(5):489-508; discussion 509-58
references: 18826669
references: Cogn Sci. 2009 Jul;33(5):752-93
references: 21585486
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 1995 Fall;7(4):512-4
references: 23961909
references: Dev Psychol. 1999 Jan;35(1):29-44
references: 9923462
references: Psychol Sci. 2000 Jul;11(4):274-9
references: 11273384
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Dec 11;104(50):19751-6
references: 18056814
references: Psychol Sci. 2010 May;21(5):729-36
references: 20483853
references: Cognition. 2012 May;123(2):260-79
references: 22325040
references: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1558-68
references: 17692305
references: Cogn Sci. 2012 Sep-Oct;36(7):1268-88
references: 22591052
references: J Child Lang. 2009 Nov;36(5):1091-114
references: 19220924
references: Science. 2001 Jan 5;291(5501):114-8
references: 11141560
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2011 May;15(5):218-26
references: 21482176
references: J Child Lang. 2007 May;34(2):251-82
references: 17542158
references: Science. 1996 Dec 13;274(5294):1926-8
references: 8943209
references: J Child Lang. 2000 Feb;27(1):157-81
references: 10740971
references: Cognition. 1998 Jan;65(2-3):263-97
references: 9557385
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Oct;32(5):429-48; discussion 448-494
references: 19857320
references: Cognition. 2012 Feb;122(2):163-80
references: 22104489
references: Science. 1997 Mar 14;275(5306):1599-603
references: 9054348
references: Child Dev. 1981;52(4):1135-45
references: 7318516
references: Science. 1999 Jan 1;283(5398):77-80
references: 9872745
references: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2013 Jan;4(1):47-62
references: 26304174
references: J Child Lang. 2010 Jun;37(3):607-42
references: 20367896
references: Cogn Sci. 2010 Mar;34(2):286-310
references: 21564213
references: Cognition. 1996 Oct-Nov;61(1-2):39-91
references: 8990968
references: Psychol Sci. 2008 Mar;19(3):241-8
references: 18315796
references: Nature. 2011 May 5;473(7345):79-82
references: 21490599
references: Psychol Rev. 2002 Jan;109(1):35-54; discussion 55-74
references: 11863041
references: J Child Lang. 2003 Aug;30(3):609-35
references: 14513470
references: Cogn Psychol. 1991 Apr;23(2):222-62
references: 2055001
references: Cognition. 2001 Sep;81(2):149-69
references: 11376640
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Oct 13;106(41):17284-9
references: 19805057
references: Cognition. 2008 Jan;106(1):87-129
references: 17316595
references: Mem Cognit. 1996 Nov;24(6):823-9
references: 8961825