Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T14:30:48.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Young children do not change language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2026

Vera Kempe ,
Damián Blasi  and
Limor Raviv Open the ORCID record for Limor Raviv [Opens in a new window]
Vera Kempe
Affiliation:
Abertay University, Dundee, UK v.kempe@abertay.ac.uk
Damián Blasi
Affiliation:
Catalan Institute for Research and Advanced Studies, Barcelona, Spain damianblasi@gmail.com
Limor Raviv*
Affiliation:
Language Evolution and Adaptation in Diverse Situations (LEADS) group, Max-Planck-Institute of Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands limor.raviv@mail.huji.ac.il Donders Centre for Cognition (DCC), Faculty of Social Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands https://www.limorravivevolang.com
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Language differs from other cultural domains in its high degree of normativity and conventionality; hence, many linguistic innovations by young children are considered acquisition errors that do not diffuse into language communities. Moreover, young children’s cognitive-pragmatic limitations hinder their ability to introduce structure into novel communication systems. Consequently, children are unlikely agents of language change or drivers of language emergence.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e236
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

References

Ambridge, B., Bidgood, A., Twomey, K. E., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Freudenthal, D. (2015). Preemption versus entrenchment: Towards a construction-general solution to the problem of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization. PloS One, 10(4), e0123723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arends, J., & Bruyn, A. (1994). 10. Gradualist and developmental hypotheses. In Pidgins and Creoles (pp. 111–120). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(02), 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohn, M., Kachel, G., & Tomasello, M. (2019). Young children spontaneously recreate core properties of language in a new modality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(51), 26072–26077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brochhagen, T., Boleda, G., Gualdoni, E., & Xu, Y. (2023). From language development to language evolution: A unified view of human lexical creativity. Science, 381(6656), 431–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchstaller, I. (2015). Exploring linguistic malleability across the life span: Age-specific patterns in quotative use. Language in Society, 44(4), 457–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, A. (2018). Microgenesis of language creativity: Innovation, conformity and incongruence in children’s language play. Language Sciences, 65, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cournane, A. (2019). A developmental view on incrementation in language change. Theoretical Linguistics, 45(3–4), 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristia, A., Dupoux, E., Gurven, M., & Stieglitz, J. (2019). Child-directed speech is infrequent in a forager-farmer population: A time allocation study. Child Development, 90(3), 759–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, B., Holm, A., Hua, Z., & Crosbie, S. (2003). Phonological development: A normative study of British English-speaking children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17(8), 617–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrod, S., & Clark, A. (1993). The development of dialogue coordination skills in school children. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girbau, D. (2001). Children’s referential communication failure: The ambiguity and abbreviation of message. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(1–2), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J. (2001). Cultural transmission and the diffusion of innovations: Adoption dynamics indicate that biased cultural transmission is the predominate force in behavioral change. American Anthropologist, 103(4), 992–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L., & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1(2), 151–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V., Gauvrit, N., Gibson, A., & Jamieson, M. (2019). Adults are more efficient in creating and transmitting novel signalling systems than children. Journal of Language Evolution, 4(1), 44–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, P. (1996). Children, adolescents, and language change. Language Variation and Change, 8(2), 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(31), 10681–10686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Negative attraction and negative concord in english grammar. Language, 48(4), 773–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lew-Levy, S., Milks, A., Kiabiya Ntamboudila, F., Broesch, T., & Kline, M. A. (2021). BaYaka Adolescent Boys Nominate Accessible Adult Men as Preferred Spear Hunting Models. Current Anthropology, 62(5), 631–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2025). Understanding language through talkbank. Current Directions in Psychological Science.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez, I. M. P. (2011). The Language of British Teenagers. A Preliminary Study of its Main Grammatical Features / El lenguaje de los jóvenes británicos. Estudio preliminar de los rasgos gramaticales de mayor relevancia. Atlantis, 33(1), 105–126.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). How toddlers and preschoolers learn to uniquely identify referents for others: A training study. Child Development, 78(6), 1744–1759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raviv, L., & Arnon, I. (2018). Systematicity, but not compositionality: Examining the emergence of linguistic structure in children and adults using iterated learning. Cognition, 181, 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. M. (1995). Pidgin Hawaiian: A Sociohistorical Study. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 10(1), 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senghas, A. (2021). Connecting language acquisition and language evolution: Clues from the emergence of Nicaraguan Sign Language. In Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Human communication: Origins, mechanisms, and functions (Vol. 40, pp. 57–85). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senghas, A., & Coppola, M. (2001). Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science, 12(4), 323–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senghas, A., Kita, S., & Ozyurek, A. (2004). Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science, 305(5691), 1779–1782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tagliamonte, S., & D’Arcy, A. (2004). He’s like, she’s like: The quotative system in Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(4), 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., & D’arcy, A. (2009). Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language, 85 ( 1), 58–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar