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. 168–199

Chapter 6
The ditransitive verb-argument construction in German L1 acquisition

A longitudinal case study

Authors
 | University of Groningen
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Usage-based approaches assume that children acquire grammatical constructions by linking form and meaning from ambient speech. Input shape is crucial in this process. One key construction type is verb-argument constructions (VACs), such as the ditransitive construction. Studies on the acquisition of English show that the verbs in VACs exhibit a Zipfian frequency distribution, with prototypical verbs occurring most often, facilitating learning. This study extends the investigation to L1 German by analyzing the development of the ditransitive VAC in a dense corpus of a child’s speech (aged 2–5) and caregiver input. Results confirm a Zipfian distribution of the ditransitive VAC verbs in the input, supporting abstraction of VAC meaning. In his ditransitive VAC production, the child initially uses prototypical verbs expressing transfer but quickly expands verb variety, and coercion occurs from early on. This rapid development is linked to the child’s growing construction network, communicative needs, and familiarity with transfer event scripts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Construction-based perspectives on L1 acquisition
    • 2.2The semantic structure of verb-argument constructions (VACs)
    • 2.3Verb frequency patterns in VACs in the input to children
    • 2.4The current study
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.4Analyses
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1RQ1: Frequency distribution in the input
    • 4.2RQ2: Different senses of the VAC in input and production
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (56)
References
Abbot-Smith, K., & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: the German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995–1026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2021). Constructivist approaches to first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 48(5), 959–983. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017) The role of analogy in language acquisition. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 215–239). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Grammatik und Lexikon im Spracherwerb: Konstruktionsprozesse. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 375–396). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1–3), 2–24. 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). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. (2006). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. J. B. Metzler. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elio, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 12(1), 20–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). The effects of category generalizations and instance similarity on schema abstraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(6), 397–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2026). What’s in a word? Cognitive-linguistic, corpus-linguistic, neuroscientific, AI, psycholinguistic, and usage-based perspectives. 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
Ellis, N. C. (2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (1st ed., pp. 139–158). Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2012). Statistical construction learning: Does a Zipfian problem space ensure robust language learning? In P. Rebuschat & J. N. Williams (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 265–304). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ogden, D. C. (2017). Thinking about multiword constructions: Usage-based approaches to acquisition and processing. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 604–620. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). VACs in parent and child language. Written with David C. Ogden. Language Learning, 66(S1), 187–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2009). Constructing another language — Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.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
(1998). Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 203–219). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 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 (Inaugural disseration). Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2015). Ditransitive constructions. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1(1), 19–41. 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(1), 103–135. 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 (pp. 61–84). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köylü, Z. (2026). Verb-argument constructions in advanced L2 English: The case of sojourners. 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
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage based models of language (pp. 1–63). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D. (2011). Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache. (n.d.). Wörterbuch zur Verbvalenz. Grammatisches Informationssystem grammis.
Lieven, E. V. M. (2008). Learning the English auxiliary: A usage-based approach. In H. Behrens (Ed.), Corpora in language acquisition research: History, methods, perspectives (pp. 61–98). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 187–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (Vol. 3rd). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B. (2010). Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In A. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath & B. Comrie (Eds.), Studies in ditransitive construcutions. A comparative handbook (pp. 1–64). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgenstern, A., & Chang, N. (2021). Talking about giving: From experience to language in child language. In M. Bouveret (Ed.), Give constructions across languages (Vol. 29, pp. 55–72). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, W. C., Cottrell, G. W., & Elman, J. L. (2000). A connectionist simulation of the empirical acquisition of grammatical relations. In S. Wermter & R. Sun (Eds.), Hybrid neural symbolic integration (pp. 175–193). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26(3), 619–653. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Wonnacott, E. (2010). Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language, 37(3), 607–642. 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. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17(1), 230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. 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
Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (p. 290–306). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinkrauss, R. (2017). L1 acquisition beyond input frequency. In J. Evers-Vermeul & E. Tribushinina (Eds.), Usage-Based approaches to language acquisition and language teaching (pp. 117–142). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Frequency and function in WH question acquisition: A usage-based case study of German L1 acquisition (Doctoral disseration). University of Groningen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinkrauss, R., Green, C., Verspoor, M., & Sun, H. (2023). A dynamic usage based perspective of bilingual children’s VAC development in English. International Journal of Complexity in Education, 4(1), 9–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 156–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Welke, K. (2019). Konstruktionsgrammatik des Deutschen: Ein sprachgebrauchsbezogener Ansatz. De Gruyter. [URL]. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willems, K. (2020). Remarks on the ditransitive construction in German. Sprachwissenschaft, 45(2), 141–180.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue