In this article we outline the constructivist (or usage-based) approach to children's language development. We argue that linguistic abstractions emerge from the interaction between children's desire to communicate, their intention-reading skills and a distributional analysis of the input. We illustrate our approach by discussing: the development of constituency; inflectional marking; utterance level constructions; more complex syntax in the form of complement-clause structures and relative clauses. We also address explanations for some systematic errors made by English-speaking children that have been much discussed in the literature: optional infinitive errors, accusative for nominative errors and wh-inversion errors. We conclude with some outstanding issues for this approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbot-SmithK.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2008). Graded representations in the acquisition of English and German transitive constructions.Cognitive Development, 23 (1), 48–66.
2.
Aguado-OreaJ. J. (2004). The acquisition of morpho-syntax in Spanish: implications for current theories of development.Unpublished PhD thesis: University of Nottingham.
3.
AmbridgeB.LievenE. (2011). Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
AmbridgeB.PineJ. M.RowlandC. F. (in press). Children use verb semantics to retreat from overgeneralization errors: A novel verb grammaticality judgment study. Cognitive Linguistics.
5.
AmbridgeB.RowlandC. F. (2009). Predicting children's errors with negative questions: Testing a schema- combination account.Cognitive Linguistics, 20 (2), 225–266.
6.
AmbridgeB.RowlandC. F.PineJ. M. (2008). Is Structure Dependence an innate constraint? New experimental evidence from children's complex question production.Cognitive Science, 32 (1), 222–255.
7.
AmbridgeB.RowlandC. F.TheakstonA. L.TomaselloM. (2006). Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: ‘What experimental data can tell us?’.Journal of Child Language, 33 (3), 519–557.
8.
BannardC.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2009). Modelling children's early grammatical knowledge, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (4l), 17284–17289.
9.
BassanoD.Van GeertP. (2007). Modelling continuity and discontinuity in utterance length: A quantitative approach to changes, transitions and intraindividual variability in early grammatical development.Developmental Science, 10 (5), 588–612.
10.
BeverT. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In HayesJ. R. (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (pp. 279–362). New York: Wiley.
11.
BowermanM. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules?Linguistics, 28, 1251–1289.
12.
BrandtS.KiddE.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2009). The discourse bases of relativization: An investigation of young German and English-speaking children's comprehension of relative clauses.Cognitive Linguistics, 20 (3), 539–570.
13.
BrandtS.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2010). Development of word order in German complement-clause constructions: Effects of input frequencies, lexical items, and discourse function.Language, 86 (3), 583–610.
14.
BybeeJ. L.SlobinD. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense.Language, 58 (2), 265–289.
15.
Cameron-FaulknerT.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech.Cognitive Science, 21 (6), 843–873.
16.
CarpenterM.NagellK.TomaselloM. (1998). Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63 (4), v-143 (Serial no: 255)
17.
ChanA.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2009). Children's Understanding of the Agent-Patient Relations in the Transitive Construction: Cross-Linguistic Comparisons between Cantonese, German and English.Cognitive Linguistics20 (2), 267–300.
ChomskyN. (1975). Reflections on language.New York: Pantheon Books.
20.
ChouinardM. M.ClarkE. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence.Journal of Child Language, 30 (3), 637–669.
21.
ChristopheA.NesporM.GuastiM. T.Van OoyenB. (2003). Prosodic structure and syntactic acquisition: The case of the head-direction parameter.Developmental Science, 6 (2), 211–220.
22.
ClarkE. V. (2007). Young children's uptake of new words in conversation.Language in Society36, 157–182.
23.
CorrêaL. M. (1995). An alternative assessment of children's comprehension of relative clauses.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24 (3), 183–203.
24.
CroftW.CruseA. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
CulicoverP.JackendoffR. (2005). Simpler Syntax.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
DabrowskaE. (2005). Language, Mind and Brain: Some Psychological and Neurological Constraints on Theories of Grammar.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press/Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
27.
DabrowskaE. (2008). The later development of an early-emerging system: The curious case of the Polish genitive.Linguistics, 46 (3), 629–650.
28.
DabrowskaE.LievenE. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions.Cognitive Linguistics, 16 (3), 437–474.
29.
DabrowskaE.SzczerbinskiM. (2006). Polish children's productivity with case marking: the role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological diversity.Journal of Child Language, 33 (3), 559–597.
30.
DeenK. U. (2006). Object agreement and specificity in early Swahili.Journal of Child Language, 33 (2), 223–246.
31.
DiesselH.TomaselloM. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis.Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 1–45.
32.
DiesselH.TomaselloM. (2005). A New Look at the Acquisition of Relative Clauses.Language, 81 (4), 882–906.
33.
DittmarM.Abbot-SmithK.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2008a). German children's comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences.Child Development, 79, 1152–1167.
34.
DittmarM.Abbot-SmithK.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2008b). Young German children's early syntactic competence: a preferential looking study.Developmental Science, 11 (4), 575–582.
35.
DresslerW. U.Kilani-SchochM.KlampferS. (2003). How does a child detect morphology? Evidence from production. In BaayenR. H.SchreuderR. (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 391–425). Berlin: De Gruyter.
36.
FernaldA.PintoJ. P.SwingleyD.WeinbergA.McrobertsG. (1998). Rapid gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the second year.Psychological Science, 9, 228–231.
37.
FillmoreC.PaulK.O'connorC. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone.Language, 64, 501–38.
38.
FoxB. A.ThompsonS. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation.Language, 66 (2), 297–316.
39.
FreudenthalD.PineJ. M.GobetF. (2009). Simulating the referential properties of Dutch, German and English Root Infinitives in MOSAIC.Language Learning and Development, 5, 1–29.
40.
FreudenthalD.PineJ. M.Aguado-OreaJ.GobetF. (2007). Modeling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish using MOSAIC.Cognitive Science, 31 (2), 311–341.
41.
FriedmannN.NovogrodskyR. (2004). The acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development.Journal of Child Language, 31 (3), 661–681.
42.
GertnerY.FisherC.EisengartJ. (2006). Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension.Psychological Science, 17 (8), 684–691.
43.
GoldbergA. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
GoldbergA. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
GomezR. L.GerkenL. (1999). Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge.Cognition70, 109–135.
46.
GoodluckH.GuilfoyleE.HarringtonS. (2006). Merge and binding in child relative clauses: The case of Irish.Journal of Linguistics, 42 (3), 629–661.
47.
GuastiM.ThorntonR.WexlerK. (1995). Negation in children's questions: the case of English. In MaclaughlinD.McewenS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 228–239) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
48.
HaegemanL. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
49.
HyamsN. (1994). Non-discreteness and variation in child language: Implications for principle and parameter models of language development. In LevyY. (Ed.), Other Children, Other Languages (pp. ll-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
JusczykP. W. (1998). The discovery of spoken language.Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
51.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1986). From meta-processes to conscious access—evidence from children's metalinguistic and repair data.Cognition, 23 (2), 95–147.
52.
KayP.FillmoreC.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction.Language, 75, 1–33.
53.
KiddE.BrandtS.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses.Language and Cognitive Processes, 22 (6), 860–897.
54.
KirjavainenM.TheakstonA.LievenE. (2009). Can input explain children's me- for-I errors?Journal of Child Language, 36 (5), 1091–1114.
55.
KrajewskiG.LievenE.TheakstonA. (in press). Productivity of a Polish child's Inflectional morphology: a naturalistic study. Morphology.
56.
KrajewskiG.TheakstonA.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2010). How Polish children switch from one case to another when using novel nouns: Challenges for models of inflectional morphology.Language and Cognitive Processes,
57.
LangackerR. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1).Stanford: Stanford University Press.
58.
LegateJ. A.YangC. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense.Language Acquisition, 14, 315–344.
59.
LewisJ. D.ElmanJ. L. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. In MooreJ. D.StenningK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentysixth annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 359–370). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
60.
LievenE. (2008). Learning the English auxiliary: A Usage-based Approach. In BehrensH. (Ed.), Corpora in Language Acquisition Research: Finding Structure in Data (Trends in Language Acquisition Research, Vol. 6) (pp. 60–98). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
61.
LievenE.SalomoD.TomaselloM. (2009). Two-year-old children's production of multiword utterances: A usage- based analysis.Cognitive Linguistics, 20 (3), 481–508.
62.
LievenE. V. M.PineJ. M.BaldwinG. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development.Journal of Child Language, 24 (1), 187–219.
63.
LustB. (2006). Child Language: Acquisition and Growth.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
MacdonaldM. C. (1999). Distributional information in language comprehension, production, and acquisition: three puzzles and a moral. In MacwhinneyB. (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 177–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65.
MacwhinneyB. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition.Journal of Child Language, 31 (4), 883–914.
66.
MakW. M.VonkW.SchriefersH. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush.Journal of Memory and Language, 54 (4), 466–490.
67.
MandlerJ. M. (2000). Perceptual and conceptual processes in infancy.Journal of Cognition and Development, 1 (1), 3–36.
68.
MaratsosM. (2000). More overregularizations after all: new data and discussion on Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen & Xu.Journal of Child Language, 27 (1), 183–212.
69.
MatthewsD.LievenE.TheakstonA.TomaselloM. (2009). Pronoun co- referencing errors: challenges for generativist and usage-based accounts.Cognitive Linguistics.20 (3), 599–626.
70.
MazukaR. (1996). How can a grammatical parameter be set before the first word? In MorganJ.DemuthK. (Eds.), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition (pp. 24–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
71.
NobleC.RowlandC.PineJ. (2009). Comprehension of Argument Structure and Semantic roles: Evidence from Infants and the Forced Choice Pointing Paradigm. Presented at Society for Research in Child Development. Denver, Colorado.
PineJULIAN M.LievenELENA V. M.RowlandC. (1998). Comparing different models of the English Verb Category.Linguistics, 36, 807–830.
74.
PinkerS. (1984). Language learnability and language development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75.
PinkerS. (1987). The bootstrapping problem in language acquisition. In MacwhinneyB. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 399–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
76.
RealiF.ChristiansenM. H. (2004). Uncovering the Richness of the Stimulus: Structure Dependence and Indirect Statistical Evidence.Cognitive Science, 29, 1007–1028.
77.
RealiF.ChristiansenM. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence.Journal of Memory and Language, 51 (1), 1–23.
78.
RowlandC. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions.Cognition, 104 (1), 106–134.
79.
RowlandC. F.PineJ. M. (2000). Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and whquestion acquisition: ‘what children do know!’.Journal of Child Language, 21 (1), 157–181.
80.
SaxtonM. (1997). The Contrast theory of negative input.Journal of Child Language24, 139–161.
81.
SchlesingerI. (1988). The origin of relational categories. In LevyY.SchlesingerI.BraineM. (Eds.), Categories and processes in language acquisition (pp. 121–178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
82.
SlobinD. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In FergusonC. A.SlobinD. I. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
83.
SlobinD. I. (1997). The origins of grammaticizable notions: Beyond the individual mind. In SlobinD. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Volume 5: expanding the contexts (pp. 265–323). London: Erlbaum.
84.
StollS.Abbot-SmithK.LievenE. (2009). Lexically restricted utterances in Russian, German and English child directed speech.Cognitive Science, 33, 75–103.
85.
TheakstonA. L.LievenE. V. (2005). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: An elicitation study.Journal of Child Language, 32, 589–616.
86.
TheakstonA.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2003). The role of input in the acquisition of third-person singular verbs in English.Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 46, 863–877.
87.
ThelenE.SmithL. (1994). A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
88.
TomaselloM. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
89.
TomaselloM.AkhtarN.DodsonK.RekauL. (1997). Differential productivity in young children's use of nouns and verbs.Journal of Child Language, 24 (2), 373–387.
90.
TomaselloM.CarpenterM.CallJ.BehneT.MollH. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition.Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 675–735.
91.
Van GeertP. (1991). A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth.Psychological Review, 98, 3–53.
92.
Van HoekK. (2003). Pronouns and point of view: Cognitive principles of co- reference. In TomaselloM. (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language (pp. 169–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
93.
VerhagenA. (2005). Constructions of Intersubjectivity.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
94.
VihmanM. M. (1996). Phonological development: The Origins of Language in the Child.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
95.
WexlerK. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage.Lingua, 106, 23–19.
96.
WexlerK.SchützeC. T.RiceM. (1998). Subject case in children with SLI and unaffected normal controls: evidence for the Agr/Tns omission model.Language Acquisition, 7, 317–344.
97.
WijnenF.KempenM.GillisS. (2001). Root infinitives in Dutch early child language: an effect of input?Journal of Child Language, 28, 629–660.
98.
WittekA.TomaselloM. (2005). German-speaking children's productivity with syntactic constructions and case morphology: local cues help locally.First Language, 25 (1), 103–25.
