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
Get fulltext
Chapter 6The ditransitive verb-argument construction in German L1 acquisition
A longitudinal case study
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
Published online: 21 May 2026
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.35.06ste
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.35.06ste
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)
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.
Behrens, H. (2021). Constructivist approaches to first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 48(5), 959–983.
(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.
(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.
(2006). The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1–3), 2–24.
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.
Elio, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 12(1), 20–30.
(1981). The effects of category generalizations and instance similarity on schema
abstraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(6), 397–417.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2009). Constructing another language — Usage-based linguistics in second language
acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357.
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
(1998). Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 203–219). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316.
Günther, K. (2020). Die Caused-Motion-Konstruktion im Deutsch-Französischen Bilingualen Spracherwerb: Ein
Konstruktionsgrammatischer Ansatz (Inaugural disseration). Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität. [URL]
Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H. (2006). Static and dynamic location in French and in English. First Language, 26(1), 103–135.
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.
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).
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage based models of language (pp. 1–63). CSLI.
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D. (2011). Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235.
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.
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.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (Vol. 3rd). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
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.
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.
Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical
transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26(3), 619–653.
Perek, F. (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based
perspectives. John Benjamins.
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.
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.
Römer, U. (2019). A corpus perspective on the development of verb constructions in second language
learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 268–290.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
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).
Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (p. 290–306). Oxford University Press.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.
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.
(2009). Frequency and function in WH question acquisition: A usage-based case study of German L1
acquisition (Doctoral disseration). University of Groningen.
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.
Taylor, J. R. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
(2000). The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 156–163.
Welke, K. (2019). Konstruktionsgrammatik des Deutschen: Ein sprachgebrauchsbezogener Ansatz. De Gruyter. [URL].
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Diessel, Holger
2026. Construction families and grammatical paradigms — or why the constructicon needs horizontal relations. In Usage-based Perspectives on Language and Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 35], ► pp. 141 ff.
Köylü, Zeynep
2026. Verb-argument constructions in advanced L2 English. In Usage-based Perspectives on Language and Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 35], ► pp. 248 ff.
Römer-Barron, Ute
2026. Usage-based language acquisition research: Where to next?. In Usage-based Perspectives on Language and Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 35], ► pp. 331 ff.
Slobin, Dan I.
2026. The wealth of the stimulus. In Usage-based Perspectives on Language and Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 35], ► pp. 22 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2026. 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.
