Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-hqrjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T17:30:35.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No usage-based linguistics without language use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2026

Bastian Bunzeck Open the ORCID record for Bastian Bunzeck [Opens in a new window] ,
Sina Zarrieß Open the ORCID record for Sina Zarrieß [Opens in a new window] ,
Stefan Hartmann Open the ORCID record for Stefan Hartmann [Opens in a new window]  and
Elena Lieven Open the ORCID record for Elena Lieven [Opens in a new window]
Bastian Bunzeck*
Affiliation:
Computational Linguistics, Linguistics Department, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany bastian.bunzeck@uni-bielefeld.de sina.zarriess@uni-bielefeld.de
Sina Zarrieß
Affiliation:
Computational Linguistics, Linguistics Department, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany bastian.bunzeck@uni-bielefeld.de sina.zarriess@uni-bielefeld.de
Stefan Hartmann
Affiliation:
Department of German Languages and Literatures, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany hartmast@hhu.de
Elena Lieven
Affiliation:
Division of Psychology Communication and Human Neuroscience, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK elena.lieven@manchester.ac.uk
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Language models excel at finding patterns in linguistic data, and can therefore prove insightful for statistical approaches to linguistics in that they provide further evidence for the strong reliance of natural languages on recurrent, fixed patterns. Nevertheless, regarding actual usage-based language processing, their implications are severely limited as they lack a crucial aspect of language use: interaction.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e203
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., & Blything, L. (2024). Large language models are better than theoretical linguists at theoretical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 50(1–2), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2024-2002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., Mandera, P., & Keuleers, E. (2016). How many words do we know? Practical estimates of vocabulary size dependent on word definition, the degree of language input and the participant’s age. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01116 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, T. A., & Bergen, B. K. (2022). Word acquisition in neural language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charpentier, L., Choshen, L., Cotterell, R., Gul, M. O., Hu, M. Y., Liu, J., Jumelet, J., Linzen, T., Mueller, A., Ross, C., Shah, R. S., Warstadt, A., Wilcox, E. G., & Williams, A. (2025). Findings of the third BabyLM challenge: Accelerating language modeling research with cognitively plausible data. Proceedings of the First BabyLM Workshop, 399–420. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.babylm-main.28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1989). The intentional stance. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2017). Opening commentary: Language in cognition and culture. In Dancygier, B. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 13–18). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, F., Granlund, S., Kolak, J., Szreder, M., Ambridge, B., Pine, J., Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. (2019). How the input shapes the acquisition of verb morphology: Elicited production and computational modelling in two highly inflected languages. Cognitive psychology, 110, 30–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.02.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. (2024). Usage-based constructionist approaches and large language models. Constructions and Frames, 16(2), 220–254. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23017.gol CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, V., Weissweiler, L., Mortensen, D. R., Schütze, H., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2025). Derivational morphology reveals analogical generalization in large language models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(19), e2423232122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2423232122 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibbotson, P. (2011). Abstracting grammar from social–cognitive foundations: A developmental sketch of learning. Review of General Psychology, 15, 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025609 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, A. A., Sathe, A., Lipkin, B., Kumar, U. U., Radkani, S., Clark, T. H., Kauf, C., Hu, J., Pramod, R. T., Grand, G., Paulun, V. C., Ryskina, M., Akyürek, E., Wilcox, E. G., Rashid, N., Choshen, L., Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., Tenenbaum, J., & Andreas, J. (2025). Elements of world knowledge (ewok): A cognition-inspired framework for evaluating basic world knowledge in language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 13, 1245–1270. https://doi.org/10.1162/TACL.a.38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahowald, K., Ivanova, A. A., Blank, I. A., Kanwisher, N., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Fedorenko, E. (2024). Dissociating language and thought in large language models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(6), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer Martins, J., Bashir, A. H., Khalid, M. R., & Beinborn, L. (2025). Once upon a time: Interactive learning for storytelling with small language models. Proceedings of the First BabyLM Workshop, 454–468. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.babylm-main.32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padovani, F., Bunzeck, B., Ali, M., Momen, O., Bisazza, A., Buschmeier, H., & Zarrieß, S. (2025). Dialogue is not enough to make a communicative BabyLM (But neither is developmentally inspired reinforcement learning). Proceedings of the First BabyLM Workshop, 421–435. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.babylm-main.29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T. (2024). Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language. In Gibson, E., & Poliak, M. (Eds.), From fieldwork to linguistic theory. A tribute to Dan Everett (No. 15; pp. 353–414). Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11351540 Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F., Westermann, G., Theakston, A. L., Pine, J. M., Monaghan, P., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2025). Constructing language: A framework for explaining acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, S1364661325001421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salhan, S., Gu, H., Rooein, D., Galvan-Sosa, D., Gaudeau, G., Caines, A., Yuan, Z., & Buttery, P. (2025). Teacher demonstrations in a BabyLM’s zone of proximal development for contingent multi-turn interaction. Proceedings of the First BabyLM Workshop, 323–355. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.babylm-main.25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sap, M., Rashkin, H., Chen, D., Le Bras, R., & Choi, Y. (2019). Social IQA: Commonsense reasoning about social interactions. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), 4462–4472. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press Google Scholar
Warstadt, A., Parrish, A., Liu, H., Mohananey, A., Peng, W., Wang, S.-F., & Bowman, S. R. (2020). Blimp: The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for English. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8, 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar