Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-wjqwx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-11T04:33:52.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

First language development: a usage-based perspective on past and current research*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2014

ELENA LIEVEN
ELENA LIEVEN*
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I first outline three major developments in child language research over the past forty years: the use of computational modelling to reveal the structure of information in the input; the focus on quantifying productivity and abstraction; and developments in the explanation of systematic errors. Next, I turn to what I consider to be major outstanding issues: how the network of constructions builds up and the relationship between social and cognitive development and language learning. Finally, I briefly consider a number of other areas of importance to a psychologically realistic understanding of children's language development.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue S1: Reflections: 40 years of JCL , July 2014 , pp. 48 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

[*]

Address for correspondence: Elena Lieven, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. e-mail: [email protected]

References

REFERENCES

Abbot-Smith, K. & Behrens, Heike (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: the German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30(6), 995–1026.Google Scholar
Aguado-Orea, J. J. (2004). The acquisition of morpho-syntax in Spanish: implications for current theories of development. (Unpublished PhD thesis) University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Alishahi, A. & Stevenson, S. (2008). A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science 32(5), 789–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Chang, F. & Bidgood, A. (2013). The retreat from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: word learning, morphology and verb argument structure. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4, 47–62.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. & Rowland, C. F. (2009). Predicting children's errors with negative questions: Testing a schema-combination account. Cognitive Linguistics 20(2), 225–66.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2006) Comparing different accounts of non-inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: ‘What experimental data can tell us?’ Journal of Child Language 33(3), 519–57.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (in press). ‘Or’ constructions: monosemy versus polysemy. In MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A. & Moravcsik, E. A. (eds), Competing motivations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
Bannard, C., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Modeling children's early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(41), 17284–89.Google Scholar
Bannard, C. & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning – the effect of familiarity on children's repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science 19(3), 241–8.Google Scholar
Bavin, E. & Stoll, S. (eds) (2013). The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. (1988). Word-class distinctions in developing grammars. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M. & Braine, M. D. S. (eds), Categories and processes in language acquisition 45–72. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). Autism and specific language impairment: categorical distinction or continuum? Novartis Foundation Symposium 251, 213–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bod, R. (2009). From exemplar to grammar: a probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science 33, 752–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowerman, M. (1988). The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics 28, 1251–89.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41(164), 1–104.Google Scholar
Brandt, S., Verhagen, A., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2011). German children's productivity with simple transitive and complement-clause constructions: testing the effects of frequency and variability. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2), 325–57.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K. & Lewis, L. B. (1999). Young children's overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70(6), 1325–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, P. (1998). Children's first verbs in Tzeltal: evidence for an early verb category. Linguistics 36(4), 713–53.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K. & Tomasello, M. (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, Serial No. 255).Google Scholar
Chan, A., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children's understanding of the agent – patient relations in the transitive construction: cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German and English. Cognitive Linguistics 20(2), 267–300.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S. & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113(2), 234–72.Google Scholar
Chemla, E., Mintz, T. H., Bernal, S. & Christophe, A. (2009). Categorizing words using ‘frequent frames’: what cross-linguistic analyses reveal about distributional acquisition strategies. Developmental Science 12(3), 396–406.Google Scholar
Childers, J. B. & Tomasello, M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children's acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology 37(6), 739–48.Google Scholar
Choi, S. & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: the influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41, 83–121.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). The linguistic approach. In Piatelli-Palmarini, M. (ed.), Language and learning: the debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, 109–17. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chouinard, M. M. & Clark, E. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language 30, 637–69.Google Scholar
Clark, R. (1974). Performing without competence. Journal of Child Language 1(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2005). Productivity and beyond: mastering the Polish genitive inflection. Journal of Child Language 32, 191–205.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., and Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3), 437–74.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., Rowland, C. & Theakston, A. (2009). The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3), 571–97.Google Scholar
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2008). German children's comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development 79, 1152–67.Google Scholar
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2014). Familiar verbs are not always easier than novel verbs: how German pre-school children comprehend active and passive sentences. Cognitive Science 38(1), 128–51.Google Scholar
Erkelens, M. A. (2009). Learning to categorize verbs and nouns: studies on Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Fernald, A. & Marchman, V. A. (2012). Individual differences in lexical processing at 18 months predict vocabulary growth in typically-developing and late-talking toddlers. Child Development 83, 203–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandes, K. J., Marcus, G. F., Di Nubila, J. A. & Vouloumanos, A. (2006). From semantics to syntax and back again: argument structure in the third year of life. Cognition 100(2), B10–20.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Aguado-Orea, J. & Gobet, F. (2007). Modeling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science 31(2), 311–41.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. & Gobet, F. (2010). Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of Optional Infinitive errors across languages: a comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model. Journal of Child Language 37(3), 643–99.Google Scholar
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H. & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature 415, 755.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (2006). Decisions, decisions: infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition 98, B67–74.Google Scholar
Gertner, Y., Fisher, C. & Eisengart, J. (2006). Learning words and rules: abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science 17(8), 684–91.Google Scholar
Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. M. (2010). Trading spaces: carving up events for learning language. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5, 33–42.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, M. & Allen, S. E. M. (2013). The effect of discourse-pragmatic features on subject omission in English. Journal of Pragmatics 56, 15–31.Google Scholar
Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A. & Fernald, A. (2008). Does input influence uptake? Links between maternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in Spanish-learning children. Developmental Science 11, F31–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A. & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children's me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language 36(5), 1091–114.Google Scholar
Krajewski, G., Lieven, E. & Theakston, A. (2012). Productivity of a Polish child's inflectional noun morphology: a naturalistic study. Morphology 22(1), 9–34.Google Scholar
Krajewski, G., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2011). How Polish children switch from one case to another when using novel nouns: challenges for models of inflectional morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes 26, 830–61.Google Scholar
Küntay, A. C. & Slobin, D. I. (2002). Putting interaction back into child language: examples from Turkish. Psychology of Language and Communication 6, 5–14.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. & Yang, C. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition 14, 315–44.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. D. & Elman, J. L. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 359–70. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24(1), 187–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieven, E. V. M., Salomo, D. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Two-year-old children's production of multiword utterances: a usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3), 481–507.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. & Stoll, S. (2009). Language development. In Bornstein, M. (ed.), The handbook of cross-cultural developmental science, 143–60. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lizskowski, U., Carpenter, M. & Tomasello, M. (2007). Reference and attitude in infant pointing. Journal of Child Language 34,1–20.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1975). Rules, rote, and analogy in morphological formations by Hungarian children. Journal of Child Language 2, 65–77.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1982). Basic syntactic processes. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development. Vol. 1: syntax and semantics, 73–136. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk. Vol. 1: transcription format and programs. Vol. 2: the database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Miller, J. & Weinert, R. (1998/2009). Spontaneous spoken language: syntax and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, T. H. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition 90, 1–117.Google Scholar
Monaghan, P., Chater, N. & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). The differential contribution of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorization. Cognition 96, 143–82.Google Scholar
Naigles, L., Hoff, E. & Vear, D. (2009). Flexibility in early verb use: evidence from a multiple-n diary study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 74(2), 1–143.Google ScholarPubMed
Noble, C. H, Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. M. (2011). Comprehension of argument structure and semantic roles: evidence from infants and the forced-choice pointing paradigm. Cognitive Science 35(5), 963–82.Google Scholar
Onishi, K. H. & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science 308, 255–8.Google Scholar
Pan, B., Rowe, M., Singer, J. & Snow, C. (2005). Maternal correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary production in low-income families. Child Development 76(4), 763–82.Google Scholar
Parisien, C. & Stevenson, S. (2010). Learning verb alternations in a usage-based Bayesian model. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, Oregon, August, online: <http://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2010/papers/0641/paper0641.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Wonnacott, E. (2010). Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language 37(3), 607–42.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46, 115–54.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M., Freudenthal, D., Krajewski, G. & Gobet, F. (2013). Do young children have adult-like syntactic categories? Zipf's law and the case of the determiner. Cognition 127(3), 345–60.Google Scholar
Pine, J., Rowland, C. F., Lieven, E. V. M. & Theakston, A. L. (2005). Testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model: why the data on children's use of non-nominative subjects count against the ATOM. Journal of Child Language 32, 269–89.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pizutto, E. & Caselli, C. (1992). The acquisition of Italian morphology: implications for models of language development. Journal of Child Language 19, 491–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reali, F. & Christiansen, M. H. (2004). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science 29, 1007–28.Google Scholar
Redington, M., Chater, N. & Finch, S. (1998). Distributional information: a powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science 22(4), 425–69.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M. (1994). Pronoun case overextension and paradigm building. Journal of Child Language 21, 157–72.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions. Cognition 104(1), 106–34.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject – auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘what children do know?’ Journal of Child Language 27(1), 157–81.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month olds. Science 274, 1926–8.Google Scholar
Salomo, D., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2010). Young children's sensitivity to new and given information when answering predicate-focus questions. Applied Psycholinguistics 31(1), 101–15.Google Scholar
Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of young children's linguistic representations: lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions? Developmental Science 6(5), 557–67.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art, 128–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stoll, S., Bickel, B., Lieven, E., Banjade, G., Bhatta, T. N., Gaenszle, M., Paudyal, N. P., Pettigrew, J., Rai, I. P., Rai, M. & Rai, N. K. (2012). Nouns and verbs in Chintang: children's usage and surrounding adult speech. Journal of Child Language 39, 284–321.Google Scholar
Street, J. & Dąbrowska, E. (2010). More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers? Lingua 120, 2080–94.Google Scholar
Stumper, B., Bannard, C., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2011). ‘Frequent frames’ in German child-directed speech: a limited cue to grammatical categories. Cognitive Science 35, 1190–205.Google Scholar
Swingley, D. (2005). 11-months-olds' knowledge of how familiar words sound. Developmental Science 8, 432–43.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children's and adults' performance on grammaticality judgement tasks. Cognitive Development 19(1), 15–34.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2002). Going, going, gone: the acquisition of the verb ‘go’. Journal of Child Language 29, 783–811.Google Scholar
Theakston, A., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of input in the acquisition of third-person singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research 46, 863–77.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Maslen, R., Lieven, E. V. M. & Tomasello, M. (2012). The acquisition of the active transitive construction in English: a detailed case study. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1), 91–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: a case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Haberl, K. (2003). Understanding attention: 12- and 18-month-olds know what's new for other persons. Developmental Psychology 39, 906–12.Google Scholar
Valian, V., Solt, S. & Stewart, J. (2009). Abstract categories or limited-scope formulae? The case of children's determiners. Journal of Child Language 36(4), 743–78.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106(1/4), 23–79.Google Scholar
Wijnen, F., Kempen, M. & Gillis, S. (2001). Bare infinitives in Dutch early child language: An effect of input? Journal of Child Language 28, 629–60.Google Scholar