|
'''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 book|last1=Murkherjee |first1=J.|chapter=Corpus Data in a Usage-Based Cognitive Grammar |editor1=K. Aijmer |editor2=B. Altenberg |title=Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23) Göteborg 22-26 May 2002 |series=Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics |volume=49 |pages=85–100 |___location=Amsterdam |publisher=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 book|first1last1=Schank, |first1=R.C.|last1last2= Abelson, |first2=R.P.|title=Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures.|journal___location=Hillsdale, NJ: |publisher=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'''
[[Joan Bybee|Bybee]]’s work<ref>{{cite journal book|first1last1=Bybee, |first1=J. L.|title=Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form.|journal___location=Amsterdam: |publisher=John Benjamins.|date=1985}}</ref><ref>{{cite journalbook |first1last=Bybee, |first=J. L.|title=Phonology and language use. |journal___location=Cambridge, UK: |publisher=Cambridge University Press.|date=2001}}</ref><ref>{{cite journalbook |first1last=Bybee, |first=J. L.|title=Frequency of use and the organization of language. |journal___location=New York: |publisher=Oxford University Press.|date=2006}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite journal book|first1last=Bybee, |first=J. L.|last1last2= Perkins, |first2= R.D.|last2last3= Pagliuca, |first2=W.|title=The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world.|journal___location=Chicago: |publihser=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 journalbook |first1last1=luce,Luce |first=P.A.|last1last2=Pisoni, |first2=D.B|last2last3=Goldinger, |first3=S.D.|titlechapter=Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words. In |editor=G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.) |journaltitle=Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. (Pp. |pages=122-147). |___location=Cambridge, MA: |publisher=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>==
|
