Usage-based models of language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:16, 3 April 2021

Revision as of 02:55, 4 April 2021

Line 6:

West Coast cognitive functionalism (WCCF) played a major role in the creation of the usage-based enterprise.

Firstly, a crucial point in WCCF was [[Eleanor Rosch]]’s paper on semantic categories in human cognition,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Boyes-Braem, P |last2=Johnson,D |last3=Gray, W.|last4=Mervis, C.B.|first1=Rosch E. |title=Basic objects in natural categories |journal=Cognitive Psychology |date=1976}}</ref>, which studied fuzzy semantic categories with central and peripheral concepts. Subsequently, [[Robin Lakoff]] (1987) applied these concepts to linguistic studies. For usage-based models of language, these discoveries legitimized interest in the peripheral phenomena and inspired the examination of the ontological status of the rules themselves.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Iverson, G.K. |last2=Corrigan, R.L. |first1=Lima, S.D. |title=The reality of linguistic rules |journal=Amsterdam: John Benjamins |date=1994}}</ref>

Secondly, WCCF focuses on the effects of social/ textual context and cognitive processes on human thought, instead of established systems and representations, which motivated the study of external sources in usage-based language research. For example, in analyzing the differences between the grammatical notions of subject vs. topic, Li and Thompson (1976), found that the repetition of certain topics by a [[speech community]] resulted in the surfacing and crystallization of formal properties into syntactic entities, namely the subject.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Givon, T |title=From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón (Ed.)|journal=Discourse and syntax. (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12, pp. 81-109).

New York: Academic Press. |date=1979b}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first1=Givon, T |title=On understanding grammar.|journal=New York: Academic Press.|date=1979c}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first1=Givon, T |title=Modes of knowledge and modes of processing. The routinization of

behavior and information.|journal=Mind, code, and context: essays in pragmatics. (pp.237-268). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.|date=1989}}</ref> This notion of syntax and morphology being an outcome of pragmatic and cognitive factors,<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Hopper, P.J. |title=When 'Grammar' and Discourse Clash: The Problem of Source Conflicts.|journal= In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón. (pp. 231-247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.|date=1997}}</ref>, was influential in the development of usage-based models.

Thirdly, the WCCF methodology of [[linguistic typology]] <ref>{{cite journal |first1=Greenberg, J.H. |title=A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language.|journal= International Journal of American Linguistics, 26, 178-194.|date=1960}}</ref> is similarly practised in usage-based models, in collecting data from real communicative contexts and analyzing them for typological regularities. This highlights an important aspect of usage-based research, the study of methods for the integration of synchrony and diachrony.

'''Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar'''

The term ‘usage-based’ was coined by [[Ronald Langacker]] in 1987, while doing research on [[Cognitive Grammar]]. Langacker identified commonly recurring linguistic patterns (patterns such as those associated with Wh- fronting, subject-verb agreement, the use of present participles, etc.) and represented these supposed rule-governed behaviours on a hierarchical structure. The Cognitive Grammar model represented grammar, semantics and lexicon as associated processes that were laid on a continuum, which provided a theoretical framework that was significant in studying the usage-based conception of language .<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Murkherjee, J.|title=Corpus Data in a Usage-Based Cognitive Grammar. In K. Aijmer

& B. Altenberg (Eds.)|journal=Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23) Göteborg 22-26 May 2002. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics, Vol. 49, pp. 85-100). Amsterdam: Rodopi.|date=2004}}</ref>. Consequently, a usage-based model accounts for these rule-governed language behaviours by providing a representational scheme that is entirely instance-based, and able to recognize and uniquely represent each familiar pattern, which occurs with varying strengths at different instances. His usage-based model draws on the cognitive psychology of schemata ,<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Schank, R.C.|last1= Abelson, R.P.|title=Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures.|journal=Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.|date=1977}}</ref>, which are flexible hierarchical structures that are able to accommodate the complexity of mental stimuli. Similarly, as humans perceive linguistic abstractions as multilayered, ranging from patterns that occur across whole utterances to those that occur in phonetic material, the usage-based model acknowledges the differing levels of granularity in speakers’ knowledge of their language. Langacker’s work emphasizes that both abstract structure and instance-based detail are contained in language, differing in granularity but not in basic principles.

'''Bybee’s Dynamic Usage-based framework'''

[[Bybee]]’s work<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Bybee, J. L.|title=Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form.|journal=Amsterdam: John Benjamins.|date=1985}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first1=Bybee, J. L.|title=Phonology and language use.|journal=Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.|date=2001}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first1=Bybee, J. L.|title=Frequency of use and the organization of language. |journal=New York: Oxford University Press.|date=2006}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite journal |first1=Bybee, J. L.|last1= Perkins, R.D.|last2= Pagliuca, W.|title=The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world.|journal=Chicago: University of Chicago Press.|date=1994}}</ref> greatly inspired the creation of usage-based models of language. Bybee’s model makes predictions about and explains synchronic, diachronic and typological patterns within languages, such as which variants will occur in which contexts, what forms they will take, and about their diachronic consequences. Using the linguistic phenomenon of splits (when a word starts to show subtle polysemy, and morphological possibilities for the originally single form ensue), Bybee proves that even irreducibly irregular word-forms are seen to be non-arbitrary when the context it occurs in is taken into consideration in the very representation of morphology. Simultaneously, she shows that even seemingly regular allomorphy is context-sensitive. Splits also aligns with the idea that linguistic forms cannot be studied as isolated entities, but rather in relation to the strength of their attachment to other entities .<ref>{{cite journal |first1=luce, P.A.|last1=Pisoni, D.B|last2=Goldinger,S.D.|title=Similarity neighborhoods of

spoken words. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.) |journal=Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. (pp. 122-147). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.|date=1990}}</ref>.

== Constructions: Form-meaning pairings<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bybee |first1=Joan L. |title=Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199544004-e-032 |website=Oxford Handbooks Online}}</ref>==

{{Main|Construction grammar}}

Constructions have direct pairing of form to meaning without intermediate structures, making them appropriate for usage-based models. The usage-based model adopts constructions as the basic unit of form-meaning correspondence.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Filmore |first1=Charles J. |title=The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. |journal=Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society |date=1988 |page=35-55}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Croft |first1=William |title=Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. |journal=Oxford: Oxford University Press. |date=2001}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldberg |first1=Adele E. |title=Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. |journal=Oxford: Oxford University Press. |date=2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldberg |first1=Adele E. |title=Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure |journal=Chicago: University of Chicago Press. |date=1995}}</ref>. A construction is commonly regarded to be a conventionalized string of words. A key feature of a grammar based on constructions is that it can reflect the deeply intertwined lexical items and grammar structure.

From a [[grammarian]] perspective, constructions are groupings of words with idiosyncratic behaviour to a certain extent. They mostly take on an unpredictable meaning or pragmatic effect, or are formally special. From a broader perspective, construction can also be seen as processing units or chunks, such as sequences of words (or [[morphemes]]) which have been used often enough to be accessed together. This implicates that common words sequences are sometimes constructions even if they do not have [[idiosyncrasies]] or form.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldberg |first1=Adele E. |last2=Casenhiser |first2=Devin |title=“English Constructions,” in Bas Aarts and April McMahon (eds.) |journal=The Handbook of English Linguistics |date=2006 |issue=Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell |page=343-55}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bybee |first1=Joan L. |last2=Eddington |first2=David |title=A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of becoming |journal=Language |date=2006 |volume=82 |page=323-55}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bybee |first1=Joan L. |last2=Hopper |first2=Paul J. |title=Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure |journal=Amsterdam: Benjamins. |date=2001}}</ref>. Additionally, chunks or conventionalized sequences can tend to develop special pragmatic implications that can lead to special meaning over time. They can also develop idiosyncrasies of form in a variety of ways.

*It drives me crazy.

Line 38:

By these means repeated sequences become more fluent. Within a chunk, sequential links are graded in strength based on the frequency of the chunk or perhaps the transitions between the elements of a chunk. A construction is a chunk even though it may contain schematic slots, that is, the elements of a chunk can be interrupted.

Memory storage requires links to connect idiomatic phrases together. In chunking, repeated sequences are represented together as units which can be accessed directly.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ellis |first1=Nick C. |title=“Sequencing in SLA: Phonological Memory, Chunking and Points of Order.” |journal=Studies in Second Language Acquisition |date=1996 |volume=18/1 |page=91–126}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Newell |first1=Allen |title=Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge |journal=MIT Press |date=1990}}</ref>. Through this, repeated sequences are more frequent. Sequential links are assessed in strength based on the frequency of the chunk or transitions between elements within a chunk. Additionally, the individual elements of a chunk can link to elements in other contexts. The example of ‘drive someone crazy’ forms a chunk, however items that compose it are not analyzable individually as words that occur elsewhere in cognitive representation. As chunks are used more frequently, words can lose their associations with exemplars of the same word. This is known as [[de-categorialization]].