Cover not available

In:Constructions in Contact 3: Constructional schemas and patterns in language contact
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 40] 2025
► pp. 208–246

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Patterns in (bilingual) language acquisition

The role of verbs in low-level generalizations

 | Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich
 | Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich
Published online: 13 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.40.06koc
Abstract
According to usage-based approaches, constructions become more abstract as language acquisition progresses, resulting in argument structure constructions. Verbs in particular play a crucial role here, especially in low-level generalization in which generalizations emerge around concrete verbs. In bilingual language acquisition, children face the challenge of having to acquire two sets of non-equivalent constructions and might thus show differences in the abstraction process compared to monolinguals. Due to a possible higher cognitive load and reduced vocabulary, one could expect bilingual children to show even stronger low-level generalizations. Targeting caused motion events, the present study investigates the use of verbs in caused-motion constructions in three different age groups (4, 6, and 8 years old) of German–French bilingual children and monolingual control groups. In a first step, the proportion of general-purpose verbs — a small group of semantically neutral verbs, such as do, go, make, etc., that have a semantically privileged status and are therefore used very frequently — in relation to more specific verbs was determined. Results showed that the number of general-purpose verbs decreased with age and was significantly higher for bilinguals than for monolinguals at all ages. In a second step, the variation within the verb slot was examined for each individual subject. Although a high degree of inter-individuality was found here, prototypical verbs were identified for some event types, indicating lower-level generalizations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The usage-based approach to language acquisition
    • 2.1The role of general-purpose verbs in usage-based (bilingual) language acquisition
    • 2.2Low-level generalizations
    • 2.3The caused-motion construction in German–French bilingual children
  • 3.Research questions
  • 4.Materials and methods
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Data collection
    • 4.3Coding and criteria of analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1The use of verbs in the caused-motion construction
      • 5.1.1Verb specificity
      • 5.1.2Variation in the verb slot
      • 5.1.3Discussion
    • 5.2Analysis by event types
      • 5.2.1Prototypical verbs in caused-motion events
      • 5.2.2Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (82)
References
Ambridge, B. (2020a). Against stored abstractions: a radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language, 40, 509–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020b). Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: response to commentators. First Language, 4, 640–659. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic construction grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic construction grammar (pp. 1–50). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2006). The input–output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 2–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47, 383–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Constructivist approaches to first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 48, 959–983. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1991). Language development from two to three. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Comparing constructions across languages. In Boas, H. C. (Ed.), Contrastive studies in construction grammar (p. 1–20). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 37–70). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Höder, S. (2018). Construction Grammar and language contact. An introduction. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 5–36) Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction-based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843–873. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1978). Discovering what words can do. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen, & K. W. Todrys (Eds), Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon, Chicago Linguistics Society April 14–15, 1978. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.
Cordes, A.-K. (2014). The role of frequency in children’s learning of morphological constructions. Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The roles of analogy, categorization, and generalization in entrenchment. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 269–288). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language (pp. 49–68). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language, 2nd. ed. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Rules or schemas? Evidence from Polish. Language and cognitive processes, 19, 225–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Low-level schemas or general rules? The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case inflections. Language Sciences, 28, 120–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 617–653. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 97–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 882–906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 197–212). Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 93–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8, 369–390. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive linguistics, 15, 289–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günther, K. (2020). Die Caused-Motion-Konstruktion im deutsch-französischen bilingualen Spracherwerb: ein konstruktionsgrammatischer Ansatz. Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harr, A.-K. (2012). Language-specific factors in first language acquisition: The expression of motion events in French and German. Studies on language acquisition. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. In Psychological Science, 15, 409–414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H. (2006). Static and dynamic location in French and in English. First Language, 26, 103–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P. (2020). What it takes to talk. Exploring developmental cognitive linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2005). Argument-structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried, & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 71–98). Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, N. (2019). Schemata im Erstspracherwerb: Eine Traceback-Studie für das Deutsche. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Theorien des Spracherwerbs. Der Deutschunterricht, 73(5), 6–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, N., & Günther, K. (2021). Transfer phenomena in bilingual language acquisition: The case of caused-motion constructions. Languages, 6, 25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, N., & Woerfel, T. (2018). Der Einfluss konstruktioneller Gebrauchsmuster in L1 und L2 auf die Verbalisierung intransitiver Bewegung bilingualer türkisch-deutscher Sprecher(innen). In A. Ballis, & N. Hodaie (Eds.), Perspektiven auf Mehrsprachigkeit: Individuum –Bildung — Gesellschaft (pp. 61–84). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, N., Quick Endesfelder, A., & Hartmann, S. (2020). Individual Differences in Discourse Priming: A Traceback Approach. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 186–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, N., Hartmann, S., & Quick Endesfelder, A. (2022a). The traceback method and the early constructicon: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 18, 477–504. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, N., Hartmann, S., & Quick, Endesfelder A. (2022b). Traceback and chunk-based learning: Comparing usage-based computational approaches to code-switching. Languages, 7, 271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreß, K. (2017). Das Verb ‘machen’ im gesprochenen Deutsch: Bedeutungskonstitution und interaktionale Funktionen. Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, E. (2009). Developing constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 191–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Ferry, A., Theakston, A., & Twomey, K. E. (2020). Similarity, analogy and development in radical exemplar theory: a commentary on Ambridge (2020). First Language, 40, 600–603. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2020a). Tools for Analyzing Talk. Part 1: The CHAT Transcription Format. Available online: [URL] (accessed on 10 July 2021).
(2020b). Tools for Analyzing Talk. Part 2: The CLAN Program. Available online: [URL] (accessed on 10 July 2021).
Matras, Y. (2020). Language contact, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, D., & Bannard, C. (2010). Children’s production of unfamiliar word sequences is predicted by positional variability and latent classes in a large sample of child-directed speech. Cognitive Science, 34, 465–488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (1999a). Model learning in syntactic development: intransitive verbs. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3, 111–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999b). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26, 619–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfänder, S., & Behrens, H. (2016). Experience counts: An introduction to frequency effects in language. In H. Behrens, & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 1–20). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of verb–argument structure. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quick Endesfelder, A., Lieven, E., Carpenter, M., Tomasello, M. (2018). Identifying partially schematic units in the code-mixing of an English and German speaking child. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8, 477–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quick, Endesfelder A., Gaskins, D., Frick, M. (2021). Priming of Frames and Slots in Bilingual Children’s Code-Mixing: A Usage-Based Approach. Frontiers in Psychology, Language Sciences. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L. & Snow, C. E. (2020). Analyzing input quality along three dimensions: interactive, linguistic, and conceptual. Journal of Child Language, 47, 5–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding child language acquisition. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sagae, K., MacWhinney, B., & Lavie, A. (2004). Automatic parsing of parent-child interactions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 113–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schick, J., Fryns, C., Wegdell, F., Laporte, M., Zuberbühler, K., van Schaik, C. P., Townsend, S. W., & Stoll, S. (2022). The function and evolution of child-directed communication. PLoS Biology, 20, e3001630. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 531–577. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoll, S., Abbot-Smith, K., & Lieven, E. (2009). Lexically restricted utterances in Russian, German, and English child-directed speech. Cognitive Science, 33, 75–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szagun, G. (2019). Sprachentwicklung beim Kind, 7th edn. Beltz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2004). Semantic generality, input frequency and the acquisition of syntax. Journal of Child Language, 31, 61–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. In E. L. Bavin, & L. R. Naigles (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (pp. 89–106). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zettersten, M., Schonberg, C., & Lupyan, G. (2020). What does a radical exemplar view not predict? A commentary on Ambridge (2020). First Language, 40, 636–639. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue