306 Lynn Clark and Graeme Trousdale
impacting on a speaker’s (or group of speakers’) choice of variants and to
rank their relative strength and significance. However, as Guy warns, statis-
tical analysis does not in itself explain variability: “Varbrul only performs
mathematical manipulations on a data set. It does not tell us what the num-
bers mean, let alone do linguistics for us” (1988: 133). In order to interpret
these findings, it is necessary to contextualize them within a wider theoreti-
cal framework. The remainder of the chapter will consider to what extent it
is possible and beneficial to interpret some of these findings within a cogni-
tive framework.
- Cognitive Analysis of (th).
4.1. Lexical frequency as a ‘cognitive’ factor group
In some respects, the first step towards a cognitive analysis of (th) has al-
ready been taken by including factor groups such as ‘lexical frequency’ in
the varbrul analysis because, in order to be able to explain these results, it is
necessary to adopt certain theoretical assumptions of a usage-based model
of language structure^13.
Perhaps the defining feature of a usage-based model is that there is as-
sumed to be an unquestionable relationship between language structure and
language use; language use is involved in shaping the grammar of individ-
ual speakers. It is argued that speakers’ linguistic systems are grounded in
‘usage events’ or instances of producing and understanding language and
that these are the bases on which the linguistic system is formed.
Kemmer and Barlow (2000: ix) describe the relationship between lan-
guage structure and language use as a ‘feedback loop’ since experience of
language both results from and also continues to shape the speaker’s lin-
guistic system. This necessarily implies that the frequency with which dif-
ferent parts of the language system are used will also affect the way in
which the system is organized and stored in cognition: “since frequency of
a particular usage-pattern is both a result and a shaping force in the system,
frequency has an indispensable role in any explanatory account of lan-
guage” (Kemmer and Barlow 2000: x).
In Cognitive Grammar, the relationship between frequency of use and
the ‘entrenchment’ of the linguistic unit is particularly important (Langack-