↓ Skip to main content

The Scope of Usage-Based Theory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Scope of Usage-Based Theory
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00255
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Ibbotson

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 148 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 25%
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Professor 11 7%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 60 39%
Psychology 24 15%
Arts and Humanities 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 31 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,123,965
of 24,027,644 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,302
of 32,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,799
of 288,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#119
of 968 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,027,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 968 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.