Skip to main content Accessibility help

Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here?



In the usage-based approach to children’s language learning, language is seen as emerging from children’s preverbal communicative and cognitive skills. Children construct more abstract linguistic representations only gradually, and show uneven development in all aspects of their language learning. I will present results that show the relationship between children’s emerging linguistic structures and patterns in the speech addressed to them, and demonstrate the effects played by the consistency of markers, the complexity of the construction in question, and relative type and token frequencies within and across constructions. I highlight the contribution made by research that employs naturalistic, experimental, and modelling methodologies, and that is applied to a range of languages and to variability in the errors that children make. Finally, I will outline the outstanding issues for this approach, and how we might address them.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here?
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here?
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here?
      Available formats


Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: ESRC Lucid child study centre, Coupland 1 building, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. e-mail:


Hide All
Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2001). What preschool children do and do not do with ungrammatical word orders. Cognitive Development, 16(2), 679692.
Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review, 23, 275290.
Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 26, 339356.
Ambridge, B. (2013). How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations? An (un-)grammaticality judgment study. Cognitive Science, 37(3), 508543.
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42(2), 239273.
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2014). A constructivist account of child language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. & O’Grady, W. (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 511536). Boston, MA: Wiley.
Ambridge, B., Noble, C., & Lieven, E. (2014). The semantics of the transitive causative construction: evidence from a forced-choice pointing study with adults and children. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 293311.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J., & Lieven, E. (2014). Child language acquisition: why Universal Grammar doesn’t help. Language, 90(3), e53e90.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J., & Rowland, C. F. (2012). The roles of verb semantics, entrenchment and morphophonology in the retreat from dative argument structure overgeneralization errors. Language, 88(1), 4581.
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 6782.
Bannard, C., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Modeling children’s early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(41), 1728417289.
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), 241248.
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blything, R. P., Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2014). Children use statistics and semantics in the retreat from overgeneralization. PloS one 9, no. 10 e110009. eScholarID:239537 | doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110009.
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 387428). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children’s first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Researchin Child Development, 41(164), 1104.
Brandt, S., Buttelmann, D., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (in press). Children’s understanding of first and third person perspectives in complement clauses and false belief tasks. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, online: <>.
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), 325357.
Braunwald, S. R., & Brislin, R. W. (1979). The diary method updated. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 2141). New York: Academic Press.
Brown, P. (2011). The cultural organization of attention. In Duranti, A., Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 2955). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Budwig, N. (1989). The linguistic marking of agentivity and control in child language. Journal of Child Language, 16, 263284.
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37, 575596.
Callaghan, T. C., Moll, H., Rakoczy, H., Warneken, F., Liszkowski, U., Behne, T., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Early social cognition in three cultural contexts. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 76(2), 1142.
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2007). What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation, Journal of Child Language, 34, 251282.
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843873.
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), 267300.
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234272.
Childers, J. B., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children’s acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 739748.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2015). The now-or-never bottleneck: a fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Online: <>.
Clark, E. V. (1973). What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. In Moore, T. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65110). New York: Academic Press.
Clark, E. V. (1978). Awareness of language: some evidence from what children say and do. In Sinclair, A., Jarvella, R. J., & Levelt, W. J. M. (Eds.), The child’s conception of language (pp. 1743). New York: Springer.
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: a corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 97141.
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008a). German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 79, 11521167.
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008b). Young German children’s early syntactic competence: a preferential looking study. Developmental Science, 11(4), 575582.
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, 128151.
Dodson, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Acquiring the transitive construction in English: the role of animacy and pronouns. Journal of Child Language, 25, 555574.
Fernald, A., & Hurtado, N. (2006) Names in frames: infants interpret words in sentence frames faster than words in isolation. Developmental Science, 9(3), F33F40.
Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2014). Inferring word meanings by assuming that speakers are informative. Cognitive Psychology, 75, 8096.
Frank, M. C., Vul, E., & Saxe, R. (2012). Measuring the development of social attention using free-viewing. Infancy, 17, 355375.
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Aguado-Orea, J., & Gobet, F. (2007). Modelling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German and Spanish using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science, 31(2), 311341.
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., & Gobet, F. (2010). Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of Optional Infinite errors across languages: a comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model. Journal of Child Language, 37, 643669.
Gertner, Y., & Fisher, C. (2012). Predicted errors in children’s early sentence comprehension. Cognition, 124, 8594.
Gertner, Y., Fisher, C., & Eisengart, J. (2006). Learning words and rules: abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science, 17(8), 684691.
Gibson, E., & Wexler, K. (1994). Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 407454.
Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2010). Trading spaces: carving up events for learning language. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 3342.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 143, 289316.
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532568.
Grünloh, T., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2011). German children use prosody to identify participant roles in transitive sentences. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 393419.
Guasti, M. T. (2004). Language acquisition: the growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Naigles, L. (1996). The origins of grammar: evidence from early language comprehension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hyams, N. (1996). The underspecification of functional categories in early grammar. In Clahsen, H. (Ed.), Generative perspectives in language acquisition (pp. 91128). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Ibbotson, P., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2014). The communicative contexts of grammatical aspect use in English. Journal of Child Language, 41(3), 705723.
Ibbotson, P., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2011). The role of pronoun frames in early comprehension of transitive constructions. Language Learning and Development, 7, 2429.
Ibbotson, P., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Semantics of the transitive construction: prototype effects and developmental comparisons. Cognitive Science, 36(7), 12681288.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keller, H. (2007). Cultures of infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children’s me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language, 36(5), 10911114.
Köymen, B., Lieven, E., & Brandt, S. (2016) Syntactic and semantic coordination in finite complement-clause constructions: a diary-based case study. Journal of Child Language, 43(1), 2242.
Krajewski, G., & Lieven, E. (2014). Competing cues in early syntactic development. In MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A., & Moravcsik, E. (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 163177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Legate, J. A., & Yang, C. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition, 14, 315344.
Li, P., & MacWhinney, B. (1996). Cryptotype, overgeneralization, and competition: a connectionist model of the learning of English reversative prefixes. Connection Science, 8, 330.
Lieven, E. (2008). Learning the English auxiliary: a usage-based approach. In Behrens, H. (Ed.), Corpora in language acquisition research: finding structure in data (pp. 6098). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lieven, E. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua, 120, 25462556.
Lieven, E., Pine, J. M., & Dresner-Barnes, H. (1992). Individual differences in early vocabulary development: redefining the referential–expressive distinction. Journal of Child Language, 19(2), 287310.
Lieven, E., Salomo, D., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: a usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 481508.
Lieven, E., & Stoll, S. (2009). Language development. In Bornstein, M. (Ed.), The handbook of cross-cultural developmental science (pp. 143160). New York: Psychology Press.
Lieven, E., & Stoll, S. (2013). Early communicative development in two cultures. Human Development, 56, 178206.
Maratsos, M. (1974). Preschool children’s use of definite and indefinite articles. Child Development, 45, 446455.
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2004). The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development, 20, 121136.
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2007). French children’s use and correction of weird word orders: a constructivist account. Journal of Child Language, 34(2), 381409.
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Pronoun co-referencing errors: challenges for generativist and usage-based accounts. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 599626.
McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2014). Acquiring formulaic language: A computational model. Mental Lexicon, 9, 419436.
McMurray, B., Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2012). Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning. Psychological Review, 119, 831877.
Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., & McLean, J. F. (2011). Evidence for (shared) abstract structure underlying children’s short and full passives. Cognition, 121(2), 268274.
Noble, C., Iqbal, F., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2015). Converging and competing cues in the acquisition of syntactic structures: the conjoined agent intransitive. Journal of Child Language. Online: <doi:10.1017/S0305000915000288>.
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pine, J., 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, 345360.
Pine, J., & Martindale, H. (1996). Syntactic categories in the speech of young children: the case of the determiner. Journal of Child Language, 23(2), 369395.
Pine, J., Rowland, C. F., Lieven, E., & 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, 269289.
Power, R. J. D., & Dal Martello, M. F. (1986). The use of the definite and indefinite articles by Italian preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 13(1), 145154.
Rispoli, M. (1994). Pronoun case overextensions and paradigm building. Journal of Child Language, 21(1), 157172.
Rowland, C. F., & Fletcher, S. L. (2006). The effect of sampling on estimates of lexical specificity and error rates. Journal of Child Language, 33(4), 859877.
Rozendaal, M. I., & Baker, A. E. (2008). A cross-linguistic investigation of the acquisition of the pragmatics of indefinite and definite reference in two-year-olds. Journal of Child Language, 35(4), 773807.
Sakas, W. G., & Fodor, J. D. (2012). Disambiguating syntactic triggers. Language Acquisition, 19, 83143.
Schmerse, D., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2014). Young children use shared experience to interpret definite reference. Journal of Child Language, 42(5), 11461157.
Schütze, C. T., & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 670681). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175208). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Slobin, D. I., & Bever, T. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: a crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229265.
Smith, L. B., Suanda, S., & Yu, C. (2014). The unrealized promise of infant statistical word–referent learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 251258.
Stoll, S. (2015). Inflectional morphology in language acquisition. In Baerman, M. (Ed.), Handbook of inflectional morphology (pp. 351374). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stoll, S., Abbot-Smith, K., & Lieven, E. (2009). Lexically restricted utterances in Russian, German and English child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 33, 75103.
Stoll, S., & Bickel, B. (2013). The acquisition of ergative case in Chintang. In Bavin, E. & Stoll, S. (Eds.), The acquisition of ergativity (pp. 183208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Theakston, A., Lieven, E., Pine, J., & Rowland, C. (2005). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: BE and HAVE. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 247277.
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, 863877.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M., & Akhtar, N. (1995). Two-year-olds use pragmatic cues to differentiate reference to objects and actions. Cognitive Development, 10, 201224.
Tomasello, M., & Kruger, A. C. (1992). Joint attention on actions – acquiring verbs in ostensive and non-ostensive contexts. Journal of Child Language, 19(2), 311333.
Tomasello, M., and Stahl, D. (2004). Sampling children’s spontaneous speech: How much is enough? Journal of Child Language, 31(1), 101121.
Valian, V. (1986). Syntactic categories in the speech of young children. Developmental Psychology, 22, 562579.
Valian, V., Solt, S., & Stewart, J. (2009). Abstract categories or limited scope formulae? The case of children’s determiners. Journal of Child Language, 36, 743778.
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106(1/4), 2379.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yang, C. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 451456.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here?



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.