A cognitive approach to quantitative sociolinguistic variation 293guistics is firmly embedded in the analysis of language as it is used in its
social context, it is less clear that this is true of cognitive linguistics, despite
the various claims that it is a ‘usage-based’ model. We therefore concur
with Geeraerts when he notes that “it is impossible to take seriously the
claim that Cognitive Linguistics is a usage-based approach and at the same
time to neglect the social aspects of language use” (Geeraerts 2001: 53).
However, it is encouraging to note that recently there have been a number
of publications within subdisciplines of cognitive linguistics that have ad-
dressed the issue of usage quite extensively, such as the following:
o Word Grammar analysis of sociolinguistic variation in the morphosyn-
tax of Buckie Scots (Hudson 2007b)
o Construction Grammar analysis of the linguistics of (in)alienable pos-
session in Lancashire English (Hollmann and Siewierska 2007)
o Cognitive Grammar sketch of linguistic variation correlated with gen-
der, sexuality and communities of practice (Watson 2006)
o Cognitive Grammar discussion of lectal variation (Kristiansen 2003)
o Discussion of usage-based methods in the context of Cognitive Lin-
guistics (Tummers, Heylen, and Geeraerts 2005)
Sociolinguists, by contrast, have been accused of failing to pay close
enough attention to developments in linguistic theory, and particularly, of
failing to build a bridge between their research and that of general linguis-
tics. Thus Cameron has noted “if sociolinguistics is to progress from de-
scription to explanation...it is obviously in need of a theory linking the
‘linguistic’ to the ‘socio’.” (Cameron 1997: 59). We believe that Cognitive
Grammar is one such means of developing that theoretical link, but it is
important to note that other accounts have also been attempted, including
earlier work on Lexical Phonology and sociolinguistic variation in Tyne-
side English (Trousdale 2002), and Minimalist accounts of the morphosyn-
tax of Buckie Scots (Adger and Smith 2005). However, both Trousdale
(2002) and Adger and Smith (2005), while sensitive to both formal and
sociolinguistic phenomena, provide an analysis which keeps the ‘linguistic’
very distinct from the ‘social’, in terms of modular knowledge. The re-
search discussed here presents a more synthetic account.
One area of linguistic research that has recently witnessed a weakening
of the dividing line between formal linguistic theory and sociolinguistics is
the exemplar based model of phonology. Exemplar based models of catego-
rization suggest that large amounts of information are stored in episodic
memory as ‘exemplars‘ or collections of complex experiences, Such a