Cover not available

In:Current Perspectives on Child Language Acquisition: How children use their environment to learn
Edited by Caroline F. Rowland, Anna L. Theakston, Ben Ambridge and Katherine E. Twomey
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 27] 2020
► pp. 91–112

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

From grammatical categories to processes of categorization

The acquisition of morphosyntax from a usage-based perspective

 | University of Basel
Published online: 17 September 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.27.04beh
Abstract
Current version of usage-based grammars propose that grammatical categories are language-specific local generalizations rather than universal building blocks of linguistic structure. This changes the perspective on what learning syntax or morphology is about. Instead of activating innate knowledge that provides the access to possible syntactic structures, children need to build the grammatical representations based on the linguistic input they receive in their communicative interactions. In doing so, they go through processes of re-representation regarding the underlying concepts and the structural generalizations. The process of conceptual integration is illustrated with the domain of space, where there is no direct connection between percepts and linguistically encoded notions. Language learning itself tunes the child’s attention to the distinctions made in the target language. Morphological categories differ in their conceptual unity and morphological regularity and provide different learning problems. Plural marking serves as an example to show how a category with conceptual unity raises learning challenges because of allomorphy (several affixes that encode the same concept). Finally, the acquisition German case marking is discussed to raise the question whether “case” as such is a useful concept in acquisition research, as case markers are polysemous in encoding different kinds of relations, and formally heterogeneous (pronomimal and nominal paradigms differ in their sub-regularities). These learning problems can only be solved with a bottom-up approach, if we assume that children learn language from language use.
Article outline
  • Preface
  • Deriving language from interaction
  • Categories and categorization in usage-based linguistics
    • Categorization processes
      • Example 1.Categorization in conceptual development: Representational redescription
      • Example 2.Learning inflectional categories with variation
      • Example 3.Learning case markers for reference and syntactic role marking
    • From a structuralist to a constructivist perspective
      • Attention tuning to prosodic cues
      • Functional relations: Reference and attribution
  • Summary and outlook
  • References
References (79)
References
Allen, S., & Behrens, H. (2019). Insights into understanding human language from children’s acquisition of morphology and syntax. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brains to behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. (2019). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). A constructivist account of child language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 479–510). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2002). Learning multiple regularities: Evidence from overgeneralization errors in the German plural. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A. H.-J. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 72–83). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Cues to form and function in the acquisition of German number and case inflection. In E. V. Clark & I. Arnon (Eds.), Experience, variation, and generalization: Learning a first language (pp. 35–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The acquisition of grammatical categories. In E. L. Bavin & L. R. Naigles (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (2 ed., pp. 250–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The role of analogy in language processing and acquisition. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 215–239). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Becoming a proficient speaker. In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study (pp. 597–610). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bittner, D. (2000). Sprachwandel durch Spracherwerb? – Pluralerwerb. In A. Bittner, D. Bittner, & K.-M. Köpcke (Eds.), Angemessene Strukturen: Systemorganisation in Phonologie, Morphologie und Syntax (pp. 123–141). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1985). What shapes children’s grammar? In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 2: Theoretical issues (pp. 1257–1319). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by linking rules? Linguistics, 28, 1253–1290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Space under construction: Language specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 387–427). Cambrigde, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2016). German children’s use of word order and case marking to interpret simple and complex sentences: Testing differences between constructions and lexical items. Language Learning and Development, 12(2), 156–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Budwig, N. (1989). The linguistic marking of agentivity and control in child language. Journal of Child Language, 16(2), 263–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choi, S., Bowerman, M., & Mandler, J. (1999). Early sensitivity to language-specific spatial categories in English and Korean. Cognitive Development, 14, 241–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Rothweiler, M., Woest, A., & Marcus, G. F. (1992). Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition, 45, 225–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, E. V., & Nikitina, T. N. (2009). One vs. more than one: Antecedents to plurality in early language acquisition. Linguistics, 47(1), 103–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Language in the mind and in the community. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms – New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (pp. 221–236). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisenbeiss, S., Narasimhan, B., & Voeikova, M. (2010). The acquisition of case. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 369–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64, 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. (1986). The acquisition of the present perfect: Explaining differences in the speech of Scottish and American children. Journal of Child Language, 13, 537–560. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Hoyos, C. (2017). Analogy and abstraction. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 672–693. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Levine, S. C., Ping, R., Isaia, A., Dhillon, S., Bradley, C., & Honke, G. (2016). Rapid learning in a children’s museum via analogical comparison. Cognitive Science, 40, 224–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graf, E., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Subject and object omission in children’s early transitive constructions: A discourse-pragmatic approach. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(3), 701–727. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D., & Sander, E. (2013). Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höhle, B., & Weissenborn, J. (2000). The origins of syntactic knowledge: Recognition of determiners in one year old German children. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 418–429). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Prototype constructions in early language acquisition. Language and Cognition, 1(1), 59–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iggesen, O. A. (2013). Number of cases. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (26 January, 2020).
Indefrey, P. (2002). Listen und Regeln: Erwerb und Repräsentation der schwachen Substantivdeklination des Deutschen (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, W. (2002). Why case marking? In I. Kaufmann & B. Stiebels (Eds.), More than words: Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Wozu braucht man eigentlich Flexionsmorphologie? Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi), 131(23–54).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M. (1998). The acquisition of plural marking in English and German revisited: Schemata vs. rules. Journal of Child Language, 25, 293–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krüger, J. (2017). Der Erwerb der Nominalphrasensyntax: Attribution und Schematisierung als syntaktische Verfahren zur Konstruktion objektbezogener Referenz (Vol. 5). Siegen: Universi, Universitätsverlag Siegen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laaha, S., Ravid, D., Korecky-Kröll, K., Laaha, G., & Dressler, W. U. (2006). Early noun plurals in German: Regularity, productivity or default? Journal of Child Language, 33, 271–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Cognitive grammar. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (Vol. 34, pp. 29–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. (2008). Learning the English auxiliary: A usage-based approach. In H. Behrens (Ed.), Corpora in language acquisition research: Finding structure in data (pp. 61–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Is language development dependent on early communicative development? In N. Enfield (Ed.), Dependencies in language: On the causal ontology of linguistic systems (pp. 86–96). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1978). Conversations between mothers and young children: Individual differences and their possible implication for the study of language learning. In N. Waterson & C. E. Snow (Eds.), The development of communication. New York, NY.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Crosslinguistic and crosscultural aspects of language addressed to children. In C. Gallaway & B. J. Richards (Eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisition (pp. 56–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madlener, K., Skoruppa, K., & Behrens, H. (2017). Gradual development of constructional complexity in German spatial language. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 757–798. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2008). On the birth and growth of concepts. Philosophical Psychology, 21(2), 207–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 229–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1991). Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. BLS, 17, 230–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ravid, D., Dressler, W. U., Nir-Sagiv, B., Korecky-Kröll, K., Souman, A., Rehfeldt, K., . . . Gillis, S. (2008). Core morphology in child directed speech: Crosslinguistic corpus analyses of noun plurals. In H. Behrens (Ed.), Corpora in language acquisition research: Finding structure in data (pp. 25–60). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding child language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sahel, S. (2010). Ein Kompetenzstufenmodell für die Nominalphrasenflexion im Erst- und Zweitspracherwerb. In U. Mehlem & S. Sahel (Eds.), Erwerb schriftsprachlicher Kompetenzen im DaZ-Kontext: Diagnose und Förderung. (pp. 185–209). Freiburg: Welke-Fillibach.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlipphak, K. (2008). Erwerbsprinzipien der deutschen Nominalphrase. Stuttgart: Ibidem.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seiler, H. (1976). Determination: A universal dimension for inter-language comparison. In H. Seiler (Ed.), Language universals. Papers from the Conference held at Gummersbach/Cologne, Germany, October 3–8, 1976 (pp. 301–328). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serratrice, L., & Allen, S. E. M. (Eds.). (2015). The acquisition of reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 2: Theoretical issues (pp. 1157–1249). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996a). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996b). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). The origins of grammaticizable notions: Beyond the individual mind. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 5: Expanding the contexts (pp. 265–323). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Form – function relations: How do children find out what they are? In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 406–449). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2017). Core knowledge, language, and number. Language Learning and Development, 13(2), 147–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10, 89–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szagun, G. (2001). Learning different regularities: The acquisition of noun plurals by German-speaking children. First Language, 21, 109–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Learning by ear: On the acquisition of case and gender marking by German-speaking children with cochlear implants and with normal hearing. Journal of Child Language, 31, 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Sprachentwicklung beim Kind: Ein Lehrbuch (5th ed.). Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based account of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J., & Gast, V. (2012). Categories and prototypes. In J. J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 166–189). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wegener, H. (1992). Pluralregeln und mentale Grammatik. In A. Strigin & I. Zimmermann (Eds.), Fügungspotenzen: Festschrift für M. Bierwisch (pp. 225–249). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Wolf, Johanna
2025. In chunks we trust . . . the problem of gender assignment in foreign language learning of French. International Journal of Bilingualism 29:2 ► pp. 474 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue