Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-kcxw8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-11T12:20:36.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mutually assured disruption: why LLMs change the game for child language acquisition research, and vice versa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2026

Ben Ambridge Open the ORCID record for Ben Ambridge [Opens in a new window]
Ben Ambridge*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK ben.ambridge@manchester.ac.uk
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

LLMs change the game for child language acquisition research, because they constitute an existence proof that – counter to most prevailing theoretical accounts – it is possible for learners to acquire a productive system of grammar solely from exposure to individual utterances, without the need for abstract grammatical rules or categories. Conversely, LLM development can benefit from insights from child language research.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e199
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

Adger, D. (2020). Syntax and the failure of analogical generalization: A commentary on Ambridge (2020). First Language, 40(5–6), 560–563.10.1177/0142723720905921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90(2), 119–161.10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B. (2020a). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language, 40(5–6), 509–559 https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719869731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B. (2020b). Abstractions made of exemplars or you’re all right and I’ve changed my mind. Response to commentators. First Language, 40(5–6), 640–659 https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723720949723 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2015). A constructivist account of child language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady, W. (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence (pp. 478–510). Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118346136.ch22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F., Theakston, A. L. & Kidd, E. J. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42(2), 239–273.10.1017/S030500091400049XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bannard, C., Rosner, M., & Matthews, D. (2017). What’s worth talking about? Information theory reveals how children balance informativeness and ease of production. Psychological Science, 28(7), 954–966.10.1177/0956797617699848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Infant gaze following and pointing predict accelerated vocabulary growth through two years of age: A longitudinal, growth curve modeling study. Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 207–220.10.1017/S030500090700829XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., (in press). Lineage-based linguistics. In Arka, W., Barth, D., & Bergqvist, H. (Eds.), Linguistic worlds and social minds: What language documentation and linguistic diversity can tell us about the nature and origin of language. Oxford University Press. https://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/Papers/Lineage-based-final.pdf Google Scholar
Cychosz, M., Romeo, R. R., Edwards, J. R., & Newman, R. S. (2025). Bursty, irregular speech input to children predicts vocabulary size. Developmental Science, 28(1), e13590.10.1111/desc.13590CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, M. C. (2023). Bridging the data gap between children and large language models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(11), 990–992.10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J, Ambridge, B. & Waring, H. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4-15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177–190.10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9), 404–409.10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodluck, H. (2020). Language acquisition by children: A linguistic introduction. Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474458177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guest, O., Suarez, M., Müller, B. C. N., van Meerkerk, E., Beverborg, A. O. G., de Haan, R., Reyes Elizondo, A., Blokpoel, M., Scharfenberg, N., Kleinherenbrink, A., Camerino, I., Woensdregt, M., Monett, D., Brown, J., Avraamidou, L., Alenda-Demoutiez, J., Hermans, F., & van Rooij, I. (2025). Against the uncritical adoption of ‘AI’ technologies in academia. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17065099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorne, J. K. (2020). The many blessings of abstraction: A commentary on Ambridge (2020). First Language, 40(5–6), 581–584.10.1177/0142723720915402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1976). Are species really individuals? Systematic Zoology, 25, 174–191.10.2307/2412744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koring, L., Giblin, I., Thornton, R., & Crain, S. (2020). Like dishwashing detergents, all analogies are not the same: A commentary on Ambridge (2020). First Language, 40(5–6), 596–599.10.1177/0142723720902292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luccioni, A. S., Viguier, S., & Ligozat, A. L. (2023). Estimating the carbon footprint of bloom, a 176b parameter language model. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(253), 1–15.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, inheritance. Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, L. (2014). Evaluating learning-strategy components: Being fair (Commentary on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven). Language, 90(3), e107–e114.10.1353/lan.2014.0048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pine, J.M., Freudenthal, D. & Gobet, F. (2023). Building a unified model of the optional infinitive stage: Simulating the cross-linguistic pattern of verb-marking error in typically developing children and children with developmental language disorder. Journal of Child Language, 50(6), 1336–1352.10.1017/S0305000923000132CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7(3), 217–283.10.1016/0010-0277(79)90001-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(11), 456–463.10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reggin, L. D., Franco, L. E. G., Horchak, O. V., Labrecque, D., Lana, N., Rio, L., & Vigliocco, G. (2023). Consensus paper: Situated and embodied language acquisition. Journal of Cognition, 6(1), 63.10.5334/joc.308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubehn, A., Nieder, J., Forkel, R. & List, J. M. (2024). Generating feature vectors from phonetic transcriptions in cross-linguistic data formats. In Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics (SCiL) 2024, 205–216. Irvine, CA.Google Scholar