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(3), 995–1026. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Adani, F., van der Lely, H. K. J., Forgiarini, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2010). Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua, 120(9), 2418–2466. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Adani, F., Forgiarini, M., Guasti, M., & van der Lely, H. (2014). Number dissimilarities facilitate the comprehension of relative clause in children affected by (Grammatical) Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Child Language, 41(4), 811–41. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ambridge, B. (2018). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition (25 July, 2018). Available at SSRN: <[URL]> (27 January, 2020). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language. Journal of Child Language, 42(2), 239–273. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ambridge, B., Noble, C., & Lieven, E. (2014). The semantics of the transitive causative construction: Evidence from a forced-choice pointing study with adults and children. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 293–311. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Freudenthal, D., & Chang, F. (2014). Avoiding dative overgeneralisation errors: Semantics, statistics or both? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 218–243. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ambridge, B., & Rowland, C. F. (2009). Predicting children’s errors with negative questions: Testing a schema-combination account. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 225–266. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ambridge, B., Rowland, C., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of non-inversion errors in children’s non-subject wh-questions: ‘What experimental data can tell us?’ Journal of Child Language, 33, 519–557. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Arnold, J. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 495–527. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blything, L., Davies, R., & Cain, K. (2015). Young children’s comprehension of temporal relations in complex sentences: The influence of memory on performance. Child Development, 86(6), 1922–1934. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boyle, W., Lindell, A. K., & Kidd, E. (2013). Investigating the role of verbal working memory in young children’s sentence comprehension. Language Learning, 63(2), 211–242. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brandt, S., Kidd, E., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The discourse bases of relativization: An investigation of young German and English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 539–570. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Buckle, L., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2017). The effects of animacy and syntax on priming: A developmental study. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 20 December 2017. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Buckle, L., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (in prep). Animacy effects in the acquisition of the transitive construction.
Budwig, N. (1989). The linguistic marking of agentivity and control in child language. Journal of Child Language, 16, 263–284. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2007). What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation. Journal of Child Language, 34, 251–82. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen- to 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 315–330. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dąbrowska, E., & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 437–474. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
De Ruiter, L., Lieven, E., Brandt, S., & Theakston, A. (2020). Interactions between givenness and clause order in children’s processing of complex sentences. Cognition, 198. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
De Ruiter, L., Lemen, H., Brandt, S., Theakston, A. & Lieven, E. (submitted). Structural and interactional aspects of adverbial sentences in English mother–child interactions: An analysis of two dense corpora.
De Ruiter, L., & Theakston, A. L. (2017). First language acquisition. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 59–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
De Ruiter, L., Theakston, A., Brandt, S., & Lieven, E. (2018). Iconicity affects children’s comprehension of complex sentences: The role of semantics, clause order, input and individual differences. Cognition, 171, 202–224. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DuBois, J. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805–855. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Finneran, D., & Leonard, L. (2010). The role of linguistic input in third person singular –s use in the speech of young children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 1065–1074. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J., & Gobet, F. (2007). Understanding the developmental dynamics of subject omission: The role of processing limitations in learning. Journal of Child Language, 34, 83–110. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Jones, G., & Gobet, F. (2015). Simulating the cross-linguistic pattern of Optional Infinitive errors in children’s declaratives and Wh- questions. Cognition, 143, 61–76. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Graf, E., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Subject and object omission in children’s early transitive constructions: A discourse-pragmatic approach. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(3), 701–727. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Graf, E., Theakston, A., Freudenthal, D., & Lieven, E. V. (2019). The subject-object symmetry revisited: Experimental and computational approaches to the role of information structure in children’s argument omission. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haendler, Y., Kliegl, R., & Adani, F. (2015). Discourse accessibility constraints in children’s processing of object relative clauses. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 860. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Junge, B., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Given/New-New/Given? Children’s sensitivity to the ordering of information in complex sentences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(3), 589–612. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 860–897. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kirjavainen, M., Lieven, E. V., & Theakston, A. (2016). Can infinitival to omissions and provisions be primed? An experimental investigation into the role of constructional competition in infinitival to omission errors. Cognitive Science, 41(5), 1242–1273. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children’s me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language, 36, 1091–1114. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kirjavainen, M., & Theakston, A. (2011). Are infinitival-to omission errors primed by prior discourse? The case of WANT constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(4), 629–657. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children’s omission of infinitival-to. First Language, 29(3), 315–341.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In J. Lyons & R. J. Wales (Eds.), Psycholinguistic papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leonard, L., Fey, M., Deevy, P., & Bredin-Oja, S. (2015). Input sources of third person singular –s inconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Child Language, 42, 786–820. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Positional learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–219. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Macdonald, R., Brandt, S., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Serratrice, L. (submitted). The role of animacy in children’s interpretation of relative clauses in English: Evidence from sentence-picture matching and eye movements.
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matthews, D., Biney, H., & Abbot-Smith, K. (2018). Individual differences in children’s pragmatic ability: A review of associations with formal language, social cognition, and executive functions. Language Learning and Development, 14(3), 186–223. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCauley, S., Bannard, C., Theakston, A., Davis, M. Cameron-Faulkner, T., & Ambridge, B. (2019). Multiword units predict non-inversion errors in children’s wh-questions: “What corpus data can tell us?” In A. K. Goel, C. M. Seifert, & C. Freksa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Montreal, QB: Cognitive Science Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McKnight, S. (2016). An investigation of the use of case marked pronouns in English speaking children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester, UK. <[URL]> (27 January, 2020).
McKnight, S., Lieven, E. V., & Theakston, A. (n. d.) “My do it!”. Why do children make my-for-I errors? (Unpublished manuscript).
Noble, C., Iqbal, F. Lieven, E. V., & Theakston, A. (2016). Converging and competing cues in the acquisition of syntactic structures: The conjoined agent intransitive. Journal of Child Language, 43(4), 811–42. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Poulin-Dubois, D., Lepage, A., & Ferland, D. (1996). Infants’ concept of animacy. Cognitive Development, 11(1), 19–36. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pozzan, L., & Valian, V. (2017). Asking questions in child English: Evidence for early abstract representations, Language Acquisition, 24(3), 209–233. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rowland, C. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition, 104, 106–134. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject–auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘What children do know?’. Journal of Child Language, 27, 157–181. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Santelmann, L., Berk, S., Austin, J., Somashekar, S., & Lust, B. (2002). Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: Dissociating movement and inflection. Journal of Child Language, 29, 813–842. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Theakston, A. L. (2012). “The spotty cow tickled the pig with a curly tail”: How do sentence position and referential complexity affect children’s and adults’ choice of referring expression? Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(4), 691–724. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Theakston, A., & Cameron-Faulkner, T. (2011). What factors affect children’s production of double marking errors in questions? Paper presented at the XII International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Montreal, July 2011.
Theakston, A., Ibbotson, P., Freudenthal, D., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Productivity of noun slots in verb frames. Cognitive Science, 39(6), 1369–1395. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Theakston, A., & Kirjavainen, M. (2008). Pronoun case errors: The role of the input. Paper presented at the XI International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Edinburgh, July 2008.
Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. V. (2008). The influence of discourse context on children’s provision of auxiliary BE. Journal of Child Language, 35, 129–58. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. V. (2017). Multi-unit sequences in first language acquisition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 588–603. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of the input in the acquisition of third singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 863–877. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Theakston, A., Maslen, R., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2012). The acquisition of the transitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 91–128. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Valian, V. (1986). Syntactic categories in the speech of young children. Developmental Psychology, 22, 562–79. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32, 685–712. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wills, D. D. (1977). Participant deixis in English and baby talk. In C. E. Snow & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp. 271–298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wisman Weil, L., & Leonard, L. (2017). Case assignment in English-speaking children: A paired priming paradigm. Journal of Child Language, 44, 943–967. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)