Cover not available

In:Usage-based Perspectives on Language and Language Acquisition: In honour of Heike Behrens
Edited by Karin Madlener-Charpentier, Marjolijn H. Verspoor, Mirjam Weder and Annelies Häcki Buhofer
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 35] 2026
► pp. 111–140

Chapter 4
Explaining individual differences in children’s vocabulary growth

Insights from the Language 0–5 Project

Authors
 | Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics | Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition & Behaviour
 | Nottingham Trent University
 | Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust
 | Liverpool John Moores University
 | University of Liverpool
 | University of Manchester
 | University of Liverpool
 | University of Liverpool
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Our goal in this chapter was to test a usage-based computational model of vocabulary learning (CLASSIC). CLASSIC simulates variation in vocabulary growth as a product of interactions between linguistic input quantity and the child’s current knowledge state, using an associative learning mechanism with a fixed capacity limited processing window. We directly compared the model’s results to those from children taking part in a number of empirical tasks and showed that, simply by varying the amount of input received by the model, we can successfully simulate a number of effects that we see in the children’s performance: individual differences in the rate of vocabulary growth between 19 and 30 months of age; correlations between vocabulary size, familiar word processing speed (as measured by Looking-While-Listening tasks) and phonological working memory capacity (as measured by non-word repetition tasks), and the effect of processing speed and non-word repetition performance on subsequent vocabulary growth. The results suggest that exposure to linguistic input, read through a fixed capacity processing constraint, leads learners to store phonological knowledge in chunks of information of varying size, and it is this stored knowledge that, at least partially, determines familiar word processing speed, non-word repetition performance, and vocabulary growth.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Why do children differ in the speed with which they learn words?
    • 1.2Introducing CLASSIC
    • 1.3The present study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Stimuli and procedure
    • 2.3CLASSIC training
    • 2.4Comparing children and models
    • 2.5Coding
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Vocabulary growth
    • 3.2NWR tasks and vocabulary size
    • 3.3Processing speed task (LWL) and vocabulary size
    • 3.4Processing speed (LWL) and NWR tasks
    • 3.5Predicting vocabulary growth from NWR performance
    • 3.6Predicting vocabulary growth from speed of processing
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (63)
References
Anderson, N. J., Graham, S. A., Prime, H., Jenkins, J. M., & Madigan, S. (2021). Linking quality and quantity of parental linguistic input to child language skills: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 92(2), 484–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics 47(2), 383–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The role of analogy in language acquisition. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. Pfenniger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 215–239). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Constructivist approaches to first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 48(5), 959–983. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergelson, E., Soderstrom, M., Schwarz, I.-C., Rowland, C. F., Ramírez-Esparza, N., R. Hamrick, L., Marklund, E., Kalashnikova, M., Guez, A., Casillas, M., Benetti, L., Alphen, P. van, & Cristia, A. (2023). Everyday language input and production in 1,001 children from six continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(52), e2300671120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borovsky, A. (2022). Lexico-semantic structure in vocabulary and its links to lexical processing in toddlerhood and language outcomes at age three. Developmental Psychology, 58(4), 606–630. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., Marchman, V. A., & Frank, M. C. (2019). Consistency and variability in children’s word learning across languages. Open Mind (Camb), 3, 52–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Case, R., Kurland, D. M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33(3), 386–404. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Çetinçelik, M., Rowland, C. F., & Snijders, T. M. (2020). Do the eyes have it? A systematic review on the role of eye gaze in infant language development. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 589096. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chonchaiya, W., Tardif, T., Mai, X., Xu, L., Li, M., Kaciroti, N., Kileny, P. R., Shao, J., & Lozoff, B. (2013). Developmental trends in auditory processing can provide early predictions of language acquisition in young infants. Developmental Science, 16(2), 159–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2022). Working memory development: A 50-year assessment of research and underlying theories. Cognition, 224, 105075. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 51–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cristia, A., Seidl, A., Junge, C., Soderstrom, M., & Hagoort, P. (2014). Predicting individual variation in language from infant speech perception measures. Child Development, 85(4), 1330–1345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dale, P. S., Tosto, M. G., Hayiou-Thomas, M. E., & Plomin, R. (2015). Why does parental language input style predict child language development? A twin study of gene-environment correlation. Journal of Communication Disorders, 57, 106–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2026). What’s in a word. In K. Madlener-Charpentier, M. Verspoor, M. Weder, & A. Häcki Buhofer (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on language and language acquisition. In honour of Heike Behrens. John Benjamins (this volume)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D. J., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., & Bates, E. (2007). MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: User’s guide and technical manual (2nd ed.). Paul H Brookes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernald, A., & Marchman, V. A. (2012). Individual differences in lexical processing at 18 months predict vocabulary growth in typically developing and late-talking toddlers. Child Development, 83(1), 203–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Perfors, A., & Marchman, V. A. (2006). Picking up speed in understanding: Speech processing efficiency and vocabulary growth across the 2nd year. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 98–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frank, M. C., Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., & Marchman, V. A. (2021). Variability and consistency in early language learning: The Wordbank project. The MIT Press. [URL]. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Wordbank: An open repository for developmental vocabulary data. Journal of Child Language, 44(3), 677–694. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Gobet, F., & Pine, J. M. (2024). MOSAIC+: A crosslinguistic model of verb-marking errors in typically developing children and children with developmental language disorder. Language Learning, 74(1), 111–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 752–775. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gertner, Y., Fisher, C., & Eisengart, J. (2006). Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science, 17, 684–691. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gobet, F., & Clarkson, G. (2004). Chunks in expert memory: Evidence for the magical number four … Or is it two? Memory, 12(6), 732–747. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gobet, F., Lane, P., Croker, S., Cheng, P., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 236–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1998). Expert chess memory: Revisiting the chunking hypothesis. Memory, 6(3), 225–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graf Estes, K., Evans, J. L., & Else-Quest, N. M. (2007). Differences in the nonword repetition performance of children with and without specific language impairment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(1), 177–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasson, U., Chen, J., & Honey, C. J. (2015). Hierarchical process memory: Memory as an integral component of information processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(6), 304–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2007). Spoken word recognition by Latino children learning Spanish as their first language. Journal of Child Language, 33, 227–249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jessop, A., Pine, J., & Gobet, F. (2025). Chunk-based incremental processing and learning: An integrated theory of word discovery, implicit statistical learning, and speed of lexical processing. Psychological Review, 132(6), 1340–1374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, G. (2016). The influence of children’s exposure to language from two to six years: The case of nonword repetition. Cognition, 153, 79–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Why chunking should be considered as an explanation for developmental change before short-term memory capacity and processing speed. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). A computational simulation of children’s performance across three nonword repetition tests. Cognitive Systems Research, 12(2), 113–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, G., Gobet, F., Freudenthal, D., Watson, S. E., & Pine, J. M. (2014). Why computational models are better than verbal theories: The case of nonword repetition. Developmental Science, 17(2), 298–310. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, G., Gobet, F., & Pine, J. M. (2007). Linking working memory and long-term memory: A computational model of the learning of new words. Developmental Science, 10(6), 853–873. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, G., & Rowland, C. F. (2017). Diversity not quantity in caregiver speech: Using computational modeling to isolate the effects of the quantity and the diversity of the input on vocabulary growth. Cognitive Psychology, 98, 1–21. 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
Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2013). Reassessing word frequency as a determinant of word recognition for skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 802–823. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Law, J., Rush, R., Schoon, I., & Parsons, S. (2009). Modeling developmental language difficulties from school entry into adulthood: Literacy, mental health, and employment outcomes. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52(6), 1401–1416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mainz, N., Shao, Z., Brysbaert, M., & Meyer, A. S. (2017). Vocabulary knowledge predicts lexical processing: Evidence from a group of participants with diverse educational backgrounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A., Ashland, M. D., Loi, E. C., Munevar, M., Shannon, K. A., Fernald, A., & Feldman, H. M. (2023). Associations between early efficiency in language processing and language and cognitive outcomes in children born full term and preterm: Similarities and differences. Child Neuropsychology, 29(6), 886–905. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A., Fernald, A., & Hurtado, N. (2010). How vocabulary size in two languages relates to efficiency in spoken word recognition by young Spanish — English bilinguals. Journal of Child Language, 37(4), 817–840. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A., Loi, E. C., Adams, K. A., Ashland, M., Fernald, A., & Feldman, H. M. (2018). Speed of language comprehension at 18 months old predicts school-relevant outcomes at 54 months old in children born preterm. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 39(3), 246–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masten, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 491–495. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2011). Learning simple statistics for language comprehension and production: The CAPPUCCINO model. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 33, 1619–1624.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meints, K., Fletcher, K., & Just, J. (2017). The Lincoln Toddler Communicative Development Inventory: A UK adaptation of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory: Words and sentences. University of Lincoln.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perruchet, P. (2019). What mechanisms underlie implicit statistical learning? Transitional probabilities versus chunks in language learning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(3), 520–535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perry, L. K., & Samuelson, L. K. (2011). The shape of the vocabulary predicts the shape of the bias. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peter, M. S., Durrant, S., Jessop, A., Bidgood, A., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2019). Does speed of processing or vocabulary size predict later language growth in toddlers? Cognitive Psychology, 115, 101238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Rowland, C. F., Bidgood, A., Jones, G., Jessop, A., Stinson, P., Pine, J. M., Durrant, S., & Peter, M. S. (2025). Simulating the relationship between nonword repetition performance and vocabulary growth in 2-year-olds: Evidence from the Language 0–5 project. Language Learning, 75(2), 379–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, C.F., Bidgood, A., Durrant, S., Peter, M., & Pine, J. M. (2018). The Language 0-5 Project. University of Liverpool. Available from [URL]. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roy, P., & Chiat, S. (2004). A prosodically controlled word and nonword repetition task for 2- to 4-year-olds: Evidence from typically developing children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 47(1), 223–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183(4124), 482–488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skoruppa, K. (2026). Usage and context in pediatric speech and language therapy: Helping children with oral developmental language disorder build their language system(s). In K. Madlener-Charpentier, M. Verspoor, M. Weder, & A. Häcki Buhofer (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on language and language acquisition. In honour of Heike Behrens. John Benjamins (this volume).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (2026). The wealth of the stimulus. In K. Madlener-Charpentier, M. Verspoor, M. Weder, & A. Häcki Buhofer (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on language and language acquisition. In honour of Heike Behrens. John Benjamins (this volume).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snowling, M., Chiat, S., & Hulme, C. (1991). Words, nonwords, and phonological processes: Some comments on Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, and Baddeley. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(3), 369–373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ståhlberg-Forsén, E., Latva, R., Leppänen, J., Lehtonen, L., & Stolt, S. (2022). Eye tracking based assessment of lexical processing and early lexical development in very preterm children. Early Human Development, 170, 105603. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stärk, K., Kidd, E., & Frost, R. L. A. (2022). The effect of children’s prior knowledge and language abilities on their statistical learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43(5), 1045–1071. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szewczyk, J. M., Marecka, M., Chiat, S., & Wodniecka, Z. (2018). Nonword repetition depends on the frequency of sublexical representations at different grain sizes: Evidence from a multi-factorial analysis. Cognition, 179, 23–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, G., & Simon, H. A. (1985). STM capacity for Chinese words and idioms: Chunking and acoustical loop hypotheses. Memory & Cognition, 13(3), 193–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue