The Open University UK.
Front Psychol. 2013 May 8;4:255. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00255. eCollection 2013.
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.
基于用法的方法通常依赖于相对较少的认知过程，如分类、类比和组块，来解释语言结构和功能。本文的目的首先是回顾基于用法的理论的“认知承诺”在多大程度上成功地解释了包括语言习得、处理和类型学在内的各个领域的经验发现。然后，我们考察了基于用法的理论的总体优势和劣势，并强调了存在重大争议的地方。最后，我们特别关注一组似乎超出核心基于用法的认知过程解释的文化产生的结构模式。在这种情况下，我们区分了允许语言结构的认知和需要语言结构的认知。除了需要更清楚地了解概括的机制和语法的基本单位外，我们还建议在现有的使用认知模型中整合文化产生的结构，以便更准确地预测语言的工作方式。
