[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/martin-2025-what-do-children-do-em/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/) / What do children do with do? Superfluous do in child English

# What do children do with *do*? Superfluous *do* in child English

**Authors:** Fabienne Martin, Ivona Ilić, Gert-Jan Schoenmakers, Artemis Alexiadou · **Year:** 2025 · **Venue:** Glossa: a journal of general linguistics **Link:** [glossa-journal.org/article/id/10651](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/10651/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

[**0** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W4410738905) openalex · 2026-10-18[Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://openalex.org/S4210226983)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10651)
- [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/10651/galley/41814/download)
- [DOI 10.16995/glossa.10651](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10651)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4410738905)

**Authors (4)**

1. Fabienne Martin [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0191-654X)
2. Ivona Ilic [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2288-0590)
3. [Gert-Jan Schoenmakers](https://openalex.org/A5065691209) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0666-6001) · h 6 · 119 citations · 60 works
4. Artemis Alexiadou [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6790-232X)

Citations and author metrics from openalex (2026-10-18); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

Children sometimes add *do* to positive assertions, as in *I do play* or *I do painting*. The paper proposes that this superfluous *do* has two uses in child English. Auxiliary *do* marks Tense one-to-one with its form. Light-verb *do* overtly spells out the concept of action, which adults leave silent. Corpus studies on CHILDES compare child speech with child-directed speech. After agentive predicates children use *do* more often: agentive verbs make up 36.5% of the verbs after *do* in child data, against 20.7% in adult data, and statives 53.4% against 67.3%. Superfluous *do* is unstressed and non-emphatic. A second study finds light-verb *do* with gerunds more often in child speech. The analysis is mainly qualitative, supported by these counts.

## Ideas

- I1. Write a rule detector for superfluous *do* in pupil or learner sentences: an auxiliary *do* in a positive clause, followed by a bare verb. Label the verb as agentive or stative from a lexicon in `en/src/dict.rs`, and count the classes per text with BTreeMap order.
- I2. Keep emphatic and contrastive *do* apart: a stressed *do* is not superfluous. A set of emphatic sentences is the negative control, and the detector must return nothing for it.
- I3. Use the same detector on the *do* of the early-modern texts ([7. Do, its absence, and negation](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en-x-emode/07-do-and-negation/)) to see whether its uses differ from modern child use. Do this only after the detector passes the modern tests.

## For Mova

The relevant chapters are [13. Verbs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/13-verbs/) (auxiliaries) and [19. The lexicon: vocabulary, multiword expressions and register](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/19-lexicon-mwe-register/) (verb classes). The code is `en/src/dict.rs` (the lexicon of agentive and stative verbs). The measures: the agentive and stative shares after *do* in the pupil dialogues, with the emphatic-do control. The aim is to find which pupil sentences show the pattern, not to grade the children.

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.16995/glossa.10651](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10651)

```
@article{martin2025what,
  title = {{What do children do with do? Superfluous do in child English}},
  author = {Martin, Fabienne and Ilic, Ivona and Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan and Alexiadou, Artemis},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2025},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.10651},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10651}
}
```

- [← previous Frozen by context: Pragmatic factors of syntactic freezing](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/martens-2021-frozen-context-pragmatic-factors-syntactic/)
- [next → COMICORDA: Dialogue Act Recognition in Comic Books](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/martinek-2024-comicorda-dialogue-act-recognition-comic/)
- [↑ back to English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/)

## References

159 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan & Slobin, Dan. 1985. The acquisition of Turkish. In Slobin, Dan (ed.), The cross-linguistic studies of language acquisition, vol. 1: The data, 839–876. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aksu%2DKo%C3%A7%2C+Ayhan+%26+Slobin%2C+Dan%2E+1985%2E+The+acquisition+of+Turkish%2E+In+Slobin%2C+Dan+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+cross%2Dlinguistic+studies+of+language+acquisition%2C+vol%2E+1%3A+The+data%2C+839%E2%80%93876%2E+Hillsdale%3A+Lawrence+Erlbaum+Asso)
2. Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001)
3. Alexiadou, Artemis & Rizou, Vasiliki. 2023. The use of periphrasis for the expression of aspect by Greek heritage speakers: A case study of register variation narrowing. Register Studies 5(1). 82–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20022.ale [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20022.ale)
4. Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In Baumer, Donald & Montero, David & Scanlon, Michael (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 25, 40–48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alexiadou%2C+Artemis+%26+Sch%C3%A4fer%2C+Florian%2E+2006%2E+Instrument+subjects+are+agents+or+causers%2E+In+Baumer%2C+Donald+%26+Montero%2C+David+%26+Scanlon%2C+Michael+%28eds%2E%29%2C+West+Coast+Conference+on+Formal+Linguistics+%28WCCFL)
5. Alhama, Raquel G. & Foushee, Ruthe & Byrne, Daniel & Ettinger, Allyson & Goldin-Meadow, Susan & Alishahi, Afra. 2023. Linguistic productivity: the case of determiners in English. In Park, Jong C. & Arase, Yuki & Hu, Baotian & Lu, Wei & Wijaya, Derry & Purwarianti, Ayu & Krisnadhi, Adila Alfa (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference on natural language processing and the 3rd conference of the Asia-Pacific chapter of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers), 330–343. Nusa Dua, Bali: Association for Computational Linguistics. aclanthology. org/2023.ijcnlp-main.21/. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.21 [↗](https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.21)
6. Andersen, Roger W. & Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1994. Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16(2). 133–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012845 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100012845)
7. Antoniou, Kyriakos & Katsos, Napoleon. 2017. The effect of childhood multilingualism and bilectalism on implicature understanding. Applied Psycholinguistics 38(4). 787–833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641600045X [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s014271641600045x)
8. Arnon, Inbal. 2009. Starting big – The role of multi-word phrases in language learning and use. Palo Alto: Stanford dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Arnon%2C+Inbal%2E+2009%2E+Starting+big+%E2%80%93+The+role+of+multi%2Dword+phrases+in+language+learning+and+use%2E+Palo+Alto%3A+Stanford+dissertation%2E)
9. Baillargeon, Renée & Carey, Susan. 2012. Core cognition and beyond: The acquisition of physical and numerical knowledge. In Pauen, Sabina (ed.), Early childhood development and later outcome, 33–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Baillargeon%2C+Ren%C3%A9e+%26+Carey%2C+Susan%2E+2012%2E+Core+cognition+and+beyond%3A+The+acquisition+of+physical+and+numerical+knowledge%2E+In+Pauen%2C+Sabina+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Early+childhood+development+and+later+outcome%2C+33%E2%80%9365%2E+C)
10. Barner, David. 2001. Light verbs and the flexible use of words as noun and verb in early language learning. McGill University MSc Thesis, Montreal. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Barner%2C+David%2E+2001%2E+Light+verbs+and+the+flexible+use+of+words+as+noun+and+verb+in+early+language+learning%2E+McGill+University+MSc+Thesis%2C+Montreal%2E)
11. Bates, Elizabeth & Bretherton, Inge & Snyder, Lynn Sebestyen. 1991. From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms, vol. 20. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bates%2C+Elizabeth+%26+Bretherton%2C+Inge+%26+Snyder%2C+Lynn+Sebestyen%2E+1991%2E+From+first+words+to+grammar%3A+Individual+differences+and+dissociable+mechanisms%2C+vol%2E+20%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
12. Benz, Anton. 2006. Partial blocking and associative learning. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(5). 587–615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9005-3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9005-3)
13. Bernstein, Nan. 1984. Patterns of vowel modification in motherese. Journal of Child Language 11(3). 557–578. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090000595X [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s030500090000595x)
14. Bezinska, Yanka & Chevrot, Jean-Pierre & Novakova, Iva. 2008. Le prédicat complexe faire+ Vinf dans le langage enfantin entre 4 et 6 ans. In Durand, Jacques & Habert, Benoit & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Congrès mondial de linguistique française, 1707–1721. EDP Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/cmlf08224 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1051/cmlf08224)
15. Bliss, Lynn. 1988. The development of modals. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 9(3). 253–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(88)90028-7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(88)90028-7)
16. Blom, Elma. 2003. From root infinitive to finite sentence. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Blom%2C+Elma%2E+2003%2E+From+root+infinitive+to+finite+sentence%2E+Utrecht%3A+Universiteit+Utrecht+dissertation%2E)
17. Blom, Elma & van de Craats, Ineke & Verhagen, Josje. 2013. Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513476 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513476)
18. Bloom, Lois. 1970. Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bloom%2C+Lois%2E+1970%2E+Language+development%3A+Form+and+function+in+emerging+grammars%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
19. Bohannon III, John Neil & Marquis, Angela Lynn. 1977. Children’s control of adult speech. Child Development 48(3). 1002–1008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1977.tb01259.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1977.tb01259.x)
20. Bohnacker, Ute. 2013. Reflections on dummy DO in child language and syntactic theory. In Blom, Elma & van de Craats, Ineke & Verhagen, Josje (eds.), Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition, vol. 49, 171. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9781614513476.171 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513476.171)
21. Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. That’s that, vol. 155 (Janua Linguarum. Series Minor). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bolinger%2C+Dwight%2E+1972%2E+That%E2%80%99s+that%2C+vol%2E+155+%28Janua+Linguarum%2E+Series+Minor%29%2E+Berlin+%26+New+York%3A+De+Gruyter+Mouton%2E)
22. Bott, Oliver & Solstad, Torgrim. 2014. From verbs to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In Hemforth, Barbara & Mertins, Barbara & Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages, 213–251. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05675-3_9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05675-3_9)
23. Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The semantics of syntax. Chicago: Chicago University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bouchard%2C+Denis%2E+1995%2E+The+semantics+of+syntax%2E+Chicago%3A+Chicago+University+Press%2E)
24. Bowerman, Melissa. 1982. Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisition from children’s late speech errors. In Strauss, Sidney (ed.), U shaped behavioral growth, 101–145. Academia Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-673020-3.50012-4 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-673020-3.50012-4)
25. Bowerman, Melissa. 2018. Ten lectures on language, cognition, and language acquisition. Leiden, The Netherlands: BRILL. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004362826 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004362826)
26. Braunwald, Susan. 1971. Mother-child communication: the function of maternal-language input. Word 27(1–3). 28–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1971.11435613 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1971.11435613)
27. Brown, Roger. 1974. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674732469 [↗](https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674732469)
28. Cazden, C. 1968. The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child Development 39(2). 433–448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1968.tb04436.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1968.tb04436.x)
29. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2013. Cognition, universal grammar, and typological generalizations. Lingua 130. 50–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007)
30. Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi. 2009. The cartography of syntactic structures. In Heine, Bernad & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 51–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0003)
31. Clark, Eve. 1978. Awareness of language: Some evidence from what children say and do. In Sinclair, Anne & Jarvella, Robert & Levelt, Willem (eds.), The child’s conception of language, 17–43. Berlin: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67155-5_2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67155-5_2)
32. Clark, Eve. 1985. The acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. In Slobin, Dan (ed.), The cross-linguistic studies of language acquisition. vol. 1: The data, 687–782. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Clark%2C+Eve%2E+1985%2E+The+acquisition+of+Romance%2C+with+special+reference+to+French%2E+In+Slobin%2C+Dan+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+cross%2Dlinguistic+studies+of+language+acquisition%2E+vol%2E+1%3A+The+data%2C+687%E2%80%93782%2E+Hillsdale%2C+NJ%3A+La)
33. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Comrie%2C+Bernard%2E+1976%2E+Aspect%3A+An+introduction+to+the+study+of+verbal+aspect+and+related+problems%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
34. Copley, Bridget & Harley, Heidi. 2015. A force-theoretic framework for event structure. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2). 103–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9168-x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9168-x)
35. Cruse, D. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 47(1). DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0022226700003509 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700003509)
36. Delancey, Scott. 1985. On active typology and the nature of agentivity. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Relational typology, 47–60. Berlin, New York & Amsterdam: Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1515/9783110848731.47 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848731.47)
37. Demetras, Martha Jo-Ann. 1986. Working parents’ conversational responses to their two-year-old sons (linguistic input, language acquisition). Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Demetras%2C+Martha+Jo%2DAnn%2E+1986%2E+Working+parents%E2%80%99+conversational+responses+to+their+two%2Dyear%2Dold+sons+%28linguistic+input%2C+language+acquisition%29%2E+Tucson%2C+Arizona%3A+The+University+of+Arizona%2E)
38. Demirdache, Hamida. 1997. ‘Out of control’ in Salish and event (de)composition. Manuscript, University of British Columbia. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Demirdache%2C+Hamida%2E+1997%2E+%E2%80%98Out+of+control%E2%80%99+in+Salish+and+event+%28de%29composition%2E+Manuscript%2C+University+of+British+Columbia%2E)
39. Denison, David. 1985. The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Eaton, Roger & Leek, Frederike & Koopman, Willem & Fischer, Olga (eds.), 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. 45–60. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.41.07den [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.41.07den)
40. Dickinson, David & Tabors, Patton. 2001. Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dickinson%2C+David+%26+Tabors%2C+Patton%2E+2001%2E+Beginning+literacy+with+language%3A+Young+children+learning+at+home+and+school%2E+Baltimore%3A+Paul+Brookes+Publishing%2E)
41. Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7)
42. Ecay, Aaron. 2015. A multi-step analysis of the evolution of English do-support. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ecay%2C+Aaron%2E+2015%2E+A+multi%2Dstep+analysis+of+the+evolution+of+English+do%2Dsupport%2E+Philadelphia%3A+University+of+Pennsylvania+dissertation%2E)
43. Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4). 555–595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005)
44. Engelberg, Stefan. 2005. Stativity, supervenience, and sentential subjects. In Maienborn, Claudia & Wöllstein, Angelika (eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications, 45–68. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913798.45 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913798.45)
45. Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2012. Construtional effects of involuntary and inanimate agents: A cross-linguistic study. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fauconnier%2C+Stefanie%2E+2012%2E+Construtional+effects+of+involuntary+and+inanimate+agents%3A+A+cross%2Dlinguistic+study%2E+Leuven%3A+Katholieke+Universiteit+Leuven+dissertation%2E)
46. Feldman, Andrea. 1998. Constructing grammar: Fillers, formulas, and function. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Feldman%2C+Andrea%2E+1998%2E+Constructing+grammar%3A+Fillers%2C+formulas%2C+and+function%2E+Boulder%2C+CO%3A+University+of+Colorado+at+Boulder%2E)
47. Fletcher, Paul & Garman, Michael. 1988. Normal language development and language impairment: Syntax and beyond. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 2(2). 97–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/02699208808985246 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3109/02699208808985246)
48. Fodor, Jerry. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving kill from cause to die. Linguistic Inquiry 1(4). 429–438. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fodor%2C+Jerry%2E+1970%2E+Three+reasons+for+not+deriving+kill+from+cause+to+die%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry+1%284%29%2E+429%E2%80%93438%2E)
49. Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2005. Flavors of v. In Aspectual inquiries, vol. 62 (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory), 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5)
50. Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118(2). 190–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004)
51. Forrester, Michael. 2002. Appropriating cultural conceptions of childhood: Participation in conversation. Childhood 9(3). 255–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568202009003043 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568202009003043)
52. Frei, Henri. 1929. La grammaire des fautes. Paris: P. Geuthner. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Frei%2C+Henri%2E+1929%2E+La+grammaire+des+fautes%2E+Paris%3A+P%2E+Geuthner%2E)
53. Gardenfors, Peter. 2014. The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9629.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9629.001.0001)
54. Garvey, Catherine. 1979. An approach to the study of children’s role play. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition 1(4). 69–73. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Garvey%2C+Catherine%2E+1979%2E+An+approach+to+the+study+of+children%E2%80%99s+role+play%2E+The+Quarterly+Newsletter+of+the+Laboratory+of+Comparative+Human+Cognition+1%284%29%2E+69%E2%80%9373%2E)
55. Gathercole, Virginia. 1986. The acquisition of the present perfect: Explaining differences in the speech of Scottish and American children. Journal of Child Language 13(3). 537–560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900006875 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900006875)
56. Gelman, Susan & Coley, John & Rosengren, Karl & Hartman, Erin & Pappas, Athina & Keil, Frank. 1998. Beyond labeling: The role of maternal input in the acquisition of richly structured categories. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63(1). 1–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1166211 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/1166211)
57. Gelman, Susan A. & Taylor, Marianne G. & Nguyen, Simone P. 2004. Mother-child conversations about gender: Understanding the acquisition of essentialist beliefs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 69(1). 1–142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0037-976X.2004. 00276.x Gleason, Jean Berko. 1980. The acquisition of social speech routines and politeness formulas. In Giles, Robinson (ed.), Language: Social psychological perspectives, 21–27. Oxford: Pergamon. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-024696-3.50009-0 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0037-976x.2004)
58. Golden, John. 2016. Redundancy: When law repeats itself. Texas Law Review 94(4). 629–711. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Golden%2C+John%2E+2016%2E+Redundancy%3A+When+law+repeats+itself%2E+Texas+Law+Review+94%284%29%2E+629%E2%80%93711%2E)
59. Guasti, Maria Teresa & Alexiadou, Artemis & Sauerland, Uli. 2023. Undercompression errors as evidence for conceptual primitives. Frontiers in Psychology 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2023.1104930 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3389/)
60. Guasti, Maria Teresa & Chierchia, Gennaro & Crain, Stephen & Foppolo, Francesca & Gualmini, Andrea & Meroni, Luisa. 2005. Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(5). 667–696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01690960444000250 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/)
61. Haggerty, Laura CG. 1929. What a two-and-one-half-year-old child said in one day. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology 37(1). 75–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08856559.1930.10532224 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/)
62. Hall, Nagy, William & Nottenburg. 1981. Situational variation in the use of internal state words. Technical report no. 212. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hall%2C+Nagy%2C+William+%26+Nottenburg%2E+1981%2E+Situational+variation+in+the+use+of+internal+state+words%2E+Technical+report+no%2E+212%2E+Champaign%2C+IL%3A+University+of+Illinois%2E)
63. Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Harley%2C+Heidi%2E+1995%2E+Subjects%2C+events%2C+and+licensing%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E)
64. Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043)
65. Haspelmath, Martin & Calude, Andreea & Spagnol, Michael & Narrog, Heiko & Bamyaci, Elif. 2014. Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50(3). 587–625. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226714000255 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226714000255)
66. Hein, Johannes & Driemel, Imke & Martin, Fabienne & Nie, Yining & Alexiadou, Artemis. 2023. Errors of multiple exponence in child language. In Lu, Jiayi & Petersen, Erika & Zaitsu, Anissa & Harizanov, Boris (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hein%2C+Johannes+%26+Driemel%2C+Imke+%26+Martin%2C+Fabienne+%26+Nie%2C+Yining+%26+Alexiadou%2C+Artemis%2E+2023%2E+Errors+of+multiple+exponence+in+child+language%2E+In+Lu%2C+Jiayi+%26+Petersen%2C+Erika+%26+Zaitsu%2C+Anissa+%26+Harizanov%2C)
67. Hein, Johannes & Driemel, Imke & Martin, Fabienne & Nie, Yining & Alexiadou, Artemis. 2024. Errors of multiple exponence in child English: A study of past tense formation. Morphology 35. 143–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-024-09434-x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-024-09434-x)
68. Higginson, Roy Patrick. 1985. Fixing: Assimilation in language acquisition. Washington: Washington State University dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Higginson%2C+Roy+Patrick%2E+1985%2E+Fixing%3A+Assimilation+in+language+acquisition%2E+Washington%3A+Washington+State+University+dissertation%2E)
69. Hoekstra, Teun & Hyams, Nina. 1998. Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua 106(1–4). 81–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00030-8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(98)00030-8)
70. Hollebrandse, Bart & Roeper, Thomas. 1996. The concept of DO-insertion and the theory of INFL in acquisition. In Koster, Charlotte & Wijnen, Frank (eds.), Proceedings of the Groningen Assembly on Language Acquisition, 261–272. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hollebrandse%2C+Bart+%26+Roeper%2C+Thomas%2E+1996%2E+The+concept+of+DO%2Dinsertion+and+the+theory+of+INFL+in+acquisition%2E+In+Koster%2C+Charlotte+%26+Wijnen%2C+Frank+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+Groningen+Assembly+on+Lang)
71. Hollebrandse, Bart & van Koert, Margreet & van Hout, Angeliek. 2013. Semantic dummy verbs in child Dutch. In Blom, Elma & van de Craats, Ineke & Verhagen, Josje (eds.), Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition, 75–100. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1515/9781614513476.75 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
72. Howe, Christine. 1981. Acquiring language in a conversational context. New York: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Howe%2C+Christine%2E+1981%2E+Acquiring+language+in+a+conversational+context%2E+New+York%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
73. Igartua, I. 2015. From cumulative to separative exponence in inflection: Reversing the morphological cycle. Language 91(3). 676–722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0032 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0032)
74. JASP Team. 2025. JASP (Version 0.19.3) [Computer software]. [https://jasp-stats.org/](https://jasp-stats.org/). [↗](https://jasp-stats.org/)
75. Joo, Sehrang & Yousif, Sami & Martin, Fabienne & Keil, Frank & Knobe, Joshua. 2025. No privileged link between intentionality and causation: Generalizable effects of agency in language. Cognition. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Joo%2C+Sehrang+%26+Yousif%2C+Sami+%26+Martin%2C+Fabienne+%26+Keil%2C+Frank+%26+Knobe%2C+Joshua%2E+2025%2E+No+privileged+link+between+intentionality+and+causation%3A+Generalizable+effects+of+agency+in+language%2E+Cognition%2E)
76. Jordens, Peter. 2013. Dummies and auxiliaries in the acquisition of L1 and L2 Dutch. In Blom, Elma & van de Craats, Ineke & Verhagen, Josje (eds.), Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition, 341–368. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9781614513476.341 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/)
77. Kambanaros, Maria & Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2015. More general all-purpose verbs in children with specific language impairment? Evidence from Greek for not fully lexical verbs in language development. Applied Psycholinguistics 36(5). 1029–1057. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0142716414000034 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
78. Karmiloff-Smith, Annette. 1981. A functional approach to child language: A study of determiners and reference. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Karmiloff%2DSmith%2C+Annette%2E+1981%2E+A+functional+approach+to+child+language%3A+A+study+of+determiners+and+reference%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
79. Kelly, Linda & Quingley, Jean & Nixon, Elizabeth. 2020. Father-child shared book-reading in light-and heavy-text conditions. DOI: https://doi.org/doi:10.21415/0CHV-HZ36 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21415/0chv-hz36)
80. Kilgarriff, Adam & Baisa, Vít & Bušta, Jan & Jakubíček, Miloš & Kovář, Vojtěch & Michelfeit, Jan & Rychlỳ, Pavel & Suchomel, Vít. 2014. The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography 1(1). 7–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9)
81. Kittilä, Seppo. 2009. Causative morphemes as non-valency increasing devices. Folia Linguistica 43(1). 67–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2009.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2009.002)
82. Klein, Michael. 2022. What does do do? An investigation into the function of the English “dummy auxiliary”’. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Klein%2C+Michael%2E+2022%2E+What+does+do+do%3F+An+investigation+into+the+function+of+the+English+%E2%80%9Cdummy+auxiliary%E2%80%9D%E2%80%99%2E+Fairfax%2C+VA%3A+George+Mason+University+dissertation%2E)
83. Klemola, Juhani. 1998. Semantics of DO in South-Western dialects of English. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid & van der Wal, Marijke & van Leuvensteijn, Arjan (eds.), Do in english, dutch and german: History and present-day variation. munster, 25–52. Stichting Neerlandistiek VU Amsterdam and Nodus Publikationen Münster. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Klemola%2C+Juhani%2E+1998%2E+Semantics+of+DO+in+South%2DWestern+dialects+of+English%2E+In+Tieken%2DBoon+van+Ostade%2C+Ingrid+%26+van+der+Wal%2C+Marijke+%26+van+Leuvensteijn%2C+Arjan+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Do+in+english%2C+dutch+and+german%3A)
84. Knipschild, Bettina. 2007. Verb placement, DO-insertion and object shift: A case study of a bilingual German/English child. Essex: University of Essex dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Knipschild%2C+Bettina%2E+2007%2E+Verb+placement%2C+DO%2Dinsertion+and+object+shift%3A+A+case+study+of+a+bilingual+German%2FEnglish+child%2E+Essex%3A+University+of+Essex+dissertation%2E)
85. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27(1). 77–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9058-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9058-9)
86. Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1988. Immigrant children’s Swedish — a new variety? Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development 9(1–2). 129–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1988. 9994324 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1988)
87. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan (ed.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. New York & Berlin: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
88. Kroch, Anthony S & Myhill, John & Pintzuk, Susan. 1982. Understanding do. In Tuite, Kevin & Schneider, Robinson & Chametzky, Robert (eds.), Papers from the Eighteenth Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistics Society. 282–294. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kroch%2C+Anthony+S+%26+Myhill%2C+John+%26+Pintzuk%2C+Susan%2E+1982%2E+Understanding+do%2E+In+Tuite%2C+Kevin+%26+Schneider%2C+Robinson+%26+Chametzky%2C+Robert+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Papers+from+the+Eighteenth+Regional+Meeting+of+Chicago+Lingu)
89. Kuczaj, Stan A. 1977. The acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16(5). 589–600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77) 80021-2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(77))
90. Kuczaj, Stan A. 1978. Children’s judgments of grammatical and ungrammatical irregular past-tense verbs. Child Development 49(2). 319–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1978. tb02318.x Le Normand, Marie-Thérèse. 1986. A developmental exploration of language used to accompany symbolic play in young, normal children (2–4 years old). Child: Care, Health and Development 12(2). 121–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.1986.tb00492.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1978)
91. Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028141.001.0001)
92. Levin, Beth. 1999. Objecthood: An event structure perspective. In Billings, Sabrina & Boyle, John & Griffith, Aaron (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 1, 223–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levin%2C+Beth%2E+1999%2E+Objecthood%3A+An+event+structure+perspective%2E+In+Billings%2C+Sabrina+%26+Boyle%2C+John+%26+Griffith%2C+Aaron+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+35th+Meeting+of+the+Chicago+Linguistics+Society%2C+vol%2E+1%2C+)
93. Lieven, Elena & Salomo, Dorothé & Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3). 481–508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.022 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2009.022)
94. Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lightfoot%2C+David%2E+1991%2E+How+to+set+parameters%3A+Arguments+from+language+change%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
95. MacWhinney, Brian. 1985. Hungarian language acquisition as an exemplification of a general model of grammatical development. In Slobin, Dan (ed.), The cross-linguistic studies of language acquisition. vol. 2: Theoretical issues. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=MacWhinney%2C+Brian%2E+1985%2E+Hungarian+language+acquisition+as+an+exemplification+of+a+general+model+of+grammatical+development%2E+In+Slobin%2C+Dan+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+cross%2Dlinguistic+studies+of+language+acquisition%2E)
96. MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=MacWhinney%2C+Brian%2E+2000%2E+The+CHILDES+project%3A+Tools+for+analyzing+talk%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
97. MacWhinney, Brian & Snow, Catherine. 1985. The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language 12(2). 271–295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900006449 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900006449)
98. Martin, Fabienne. 2022. Jean-Pierre Koenig and Yanwei Jin’s analysis of expletive negation: commentary. Talk presented at Time in Translation workshop, Universiteit Utrecht, September 23, 2022. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Martin%2C+Fabienne%2E+2022%2E+Jean%2DPierre+Koenig+and+Yanwei+Jin%E2%80%99s+analysis+of+expletive+negation%3A+commentary%2E+Talk+presented+at+Time+in+Translation+workshop%2C+Universiteit+Utrecht%2C+September+23%2C+2022%2E)
99. Martin, Fabienne & Nie, Yining & Alexiadou, Artemis & Guasti, Maria Teresa. 2022. Wearing Causation on Its Sleeve: Overt cause in Child French Causatives. In Gong, Ying & Kpogo, Felix (eds.), BUCLD 46: Proceedings of the 46th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 497–510. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Martin%2C+Fabienne+%26+Nie%2C+Yining+%26+Alexiadou%2C+Artemis+%26+Guasti%2C+Maria+Teresa%2E+2022%2E+Wearing+Causation+on+Its+Sleeve%3A+Overt+cause+in+Child+French+Causatives%2E+In+Gong%2C+Ying+%26+Kpogo%2C+Felix+%28eds%2E%29%2C+BUCLD+46)
100. Martin, Fabienne & Nie, Yining & Driemel, Imke & Hein, Johannes & Alexiadou, Artemis. 2023. Morphological transparency and redundancy in child language. Manuscript, Utrecht University, San Jose State University, York University, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and ZAS Berlin. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Martin%2C+Fabienne+%26+Nie%2C+Yining+%26+Driemel%2C+Imke+%26+Hein%2C+Johannes+%26+Alexiadou%2C+Artemis%2E+2023%2E+Morphological+transparency+and+redundancy+in+child+language%2E+Manuscript%2C+Utrecht+University%2C+San+Jose+State+)
101. McCawley, James D. 1978. Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Pragmatics, 245–259. Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_009 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_009)
102. McCune, Lorraine. 1995. A normative study of representational play in the transition to language. Developmental Psychology 31(2). 198–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.31.2.198 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.31.2.198)
103. Morgenstern, A. & Parisse, C. 2007. Codage et interprétation du langage spontané d’enfants de 1 à 3 ans. Corpus 6. 55–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/corpus.922 [↗](https://doi.org/10.4000/corpus.922)
104. Morgenstern, Aliyah & Benazzo, S. & Leroy, M. & Mathiot, E. & C., Parisse. & Sekali, M. 2009. L’enfant dans la langue. De l’observation du naturaliste à l’analyse du linguiste. Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Morgenstern%2C+Aliyah+%26+Benazzo%2C+S%2E+%26+Leroy%2C+M%2E+%26+Mathiot%2C+E%2E+%26+C%2E%2C+Parisse%2E+%26+Sekali%2C+M%2E+2009%2E+L%E2%80%99enfant+dans+la+langue%2E+De+l%E2%80%99observation+du+naturaliste+%C3%A0+l%E2%80%99analyse+du+linguiste%2E+Paris%3A+Presses+de+la+So)
105. Morisset, Colleen & Barnard, Kathryn & Booth, Cathryn. 1995. Toddlers’ language development: Sex differences within social risk. Developmental Psychology 31(5). 851–865. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1037//0012-1649.31.5.851 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.31.5.851)
106. Nelson, Katherine. 1989. Narratives from the crib. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nelson%2C+Katherine%2E+1989%2E+Narratives+from+the+crib%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Harvard+University+Press%2E)
107. Newman, Rochelle & Rowe, Meredith & Ratner, Nan Bernstein. 2016. Input and uptake at 7 months predicts toddler vocabulary: The role of child-directed speech and infant processing skills in language development. Journal of Child Language 43(5). 1158–1173. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0305000915000446 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
108. Ninio, Anat & Snow, Catherine & Pan, Barbara & Rollins, Pamela. 1994. Classifying communicative acts in children’s interactions. Journal of Communication Disorders 27(2). 157–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(94)90039-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(94)90039-6)
109. Paradis, Johanne & Nicoladis, Elena & Genesee, Fred. 2000. Early emergence of structural constraints on code-mixing: Evidence from French–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(3). 245–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728900000365 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728900000365)
110. Penhallurick, John. 1985. The semantics of auxiliary do. Studies in Language 9(3). 311–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.9.3.02pen [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.9.3.02pen)
111. Piñón, Christopher. 1997. Achievements in an event semantics. In Lawson, Aaron & Cho, Eun (eds.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 7, 273–296. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications, Cornell University. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v7i0.2781 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v7i0.2781)
112. Post, Kathryn Nolan. 1992. The language learning environment of laterborns in a rural Florida community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Post%2C+Kathryn+Nolan%2E+1992%2E+The+language+learning+environment+of+laterborns+in+a+rural+Florida+community%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Harvard+University+dissertation%2E)
113. Punske, Jeffrey & Butler, Elizabeth. 2019. Do me a syntax: Doggo memes, language games and the internal structure of English. Ampersand 6. Article 100052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. amper.2019.100052 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j)
114. Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sidney & Leech, Geoffrey & Svertvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Quirk%2C+Randolph+%26+Greenbaum%2C+Sidney+%26+Leech%2C+Geoffrey+%26+Svertvik%2C+Jan%2E+1985%2E+A+comprehensive+grammar+of+the+English+language%2E+London+%26+New+York%3A+Longman%2E)
115. Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Chicago: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rappaport+Hovav%2C+Malka+%26+Levin%2C+Beth%2E+1998%2E+Building+verb+meanings%2E+In+Butt%2C+Miriam+%26+Geuder%2C+Wilhelm+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+projection+of+arguments%3A+Lexical+and+compositional+factors%2C+97%E2%80%93134%2E+Chicago%3A+CSLI+Publ)
116. Rizzi, Luigi. 1993. Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 3(4). 371–393. DOI: https://doi.org/10 . 1207 / s15327817la0304_2 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
117. Roeper, Thomas. 1991. How a marked parameter is chosen: Adverbs and do-insertion in the IP of child grammar. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17(1). 9. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roeper%2C+Thomas%2E+1991%2E+How+a+marked+parameter+is+chosen%3A+Adverbs+and+do%2Dinsertion+in+the+IP+of+child+grammar%2E+University+of+Massachusetts+Occasional+Papers+in+Linguistics+17%281%29%2E+9%2E)
118. Rollins, Pamela Rosenthal. 2003. Caregivers’ contingent comments to 9-month-old infants: Relationships with later language. Applied Psycholinguistics 24(2). 221–234. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0142716403000110 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716403000110)
119. Ross, John Robert. 1972. Act. In Davidson, Donald & Harman, Gilbert (eds.), Semantics of natural language, vol. 40 (Synthese Library), 70–126. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-010-2557-7_4 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/)
120. Rowland, Caroline. 2007. Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition 104(1). 106–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.011 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.011)
121. Sachs, Jacqueline. 1983. Talking about the there and then: The emergence of displaced reference in parent-child discourse. Children’s Language 4. 1–28. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sachs%2C+Jacqueline%2E+1983%2E+Talking+about+the+there+and+then%3A+The+emergence+of+displaced+reference+in+parent%2Dchild+discourse%2E+Children%E2%80%99s+Language+4%2E+1%E2%80%9328%2E)
122. Sauerland, Uli & Alexiadou, Artemis. 2020. Generative grammar: A meaning first approach. Frontiers in Psychology 11. 3104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.571295 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.571295)
123. Sawyer, Keith. 1997. Pretend play as improvisation: Conversation in the preschool classroom. New York: Psychology Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sawyer%2C+Keith%2E+1997%2E+Pretend+play+as+improvisation%3A+Conversation+in+the+preschool+classroom%2E+New+York%3A+Psychology+Press%2E)
124. Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan. 2023. Linguistic judgments in 3D: The aesthetic quality, linguistic acceptability, and surface probability of stigmatized and non-stigmatized variation. Linguistics 61(3). 779–824. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0179 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0179)
125. Schütze, Carson T. 2004. Synchronic and diachronic microvariation in English do. Lingua 114(4). 495–516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00070-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(03)00070-6)
126. Schütze, Carson T. 2013. Superfluous do and comparison of spell-outs. In Blom, Elma & van de Craats, Ineke & Verhagen, Josje (eds.), Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition, 13–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sch%C3%BCtze%2C+Carson+T%2E+2013%2E+Superfluous+do+and+comparison+of+spell%2Douts%2E+In+Blom%2C+Elma+%26+van+de+Craats%2C+Ineke+%26+Verhagen%2C+Josje+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Dummy+auxiliaries+in+first+and+second+language+acquisition%2C+13%E2%80%9338%2E+)
127. Sert, Cansel & Hubers, Ferdy & Redl, Theresa & Hoop, Helen de. 2023. On the acceptability of the not so dummy auxiliary ‘do’ in Dutch. In Leufkens, Sterre & Bril, Marco (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 40, 210–229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00088.ser [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00088.ser)
128. Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1991. Primacy of aspect in language acquisition: Simplified input and prototype. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Shirai%2C+Yasuhiro%2E+1991%2E+Primacy+of+aspect+in+language+acquisition%3A+Simplified+input+and+prototype%2E+Los+Angeles%3A+University+of+California+dissertation%2E)
129. Shirai, Yasuhiro & Andersen, Roger W. 1995. The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language 71(4). 743–762. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/415743 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/415743)
130. Siddiqi, Daniel. 2006. Minimize exponence: Economy effects on a model of the morphosyntactic component of the grammar. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Siddiqi%2C+Daniel%2E+2006%2E+Minimize+exponence%3A+Economy+effects+on+a+model+of+the+morphosyntactic+component+of+the+grammar%2E+Tucson%2C+AZ%3A+The+University+of+Arizona+dissertation%2E)
131. Slobin, Dan. 1971. On the learning of morphological rules: A reply to Palermo and Eberhart. In Slobin, Dan (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: A theoretical symposium, 215–223. New York: Academia Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Slobin%2C+Dan%2E+1971%2E+On+the+learning+of+morphological+rules%3A+A+reply+to+Palermo+and+Eberhart%2E+In+Slobin%2C+Dan+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+ontogenesis+of+grammar%3A+A+theoretical+symposium%2C+215%E2%80%93223%2E+New+York%3A+Academia+Press)
132. Slobin, Dan. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, Charles A. & Slobin, Dan (eds.), Studies of child language development, 175–208. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Slobin%2C+Dan%2E+1973%2E+Cognitive+prerequisites+for+the+development+of+grammar%2E+In+Ferguson%2C+Charles+A%2E+%26+Slobin%2C+Dan+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Studies+of+child+language+development%2C+175%E2%80%93208%2E+New+York%3A+Holt%2C+Rinehart%2C+%26+Win)
133. Slobin, Dan. 1985. Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, Dan (ed.), The cross-linguistic studies of language acquisition. vol. 2: Theoretical issues, 406–605. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Slobin%2C+Dan%2E+1985%2E+Crosslinguistic+evidence+for+the+language%2Dmaking+capacity%2E+In+Slobin%2C+Dan+%28ed%2E%29%2C+The+cross%2Dlinguistic+studies+of+language+acquisition%2E+vol%2E+2%3A+Theoretical+issues%2C+406%E2%80%93605%2E+Hillsdale)
134. Spelke, Elizabeth & Kinzler, Katherine. 2007. Core knowledge. Developmental Science 10(1). 89–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x)
135. Sprott, Richard. 1992. Children’s use of discourse markers in disputes: Form-function relations and discourse in child language. Discourse Processes 15(4). 423–440. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1080/01638539209544821 [↗](https://doi.org/10)
136. Steube, Anita. 2001. Correction by contrastive focus. Theoretical Linguistics 27(2–3). 215–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2001.27.2-3.215 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2001.27.2-3.215)
137. Strickland, Brent. 2017. Language reflects “core” cognition: A new theory about the origin of cross-linguistic regularities. Cognitive Science 41(1). 70–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs. 12332 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs)
138. Stromswold, Karin. 1990. Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stromswold%2C+Karin%2E+1990%2E+Learnability+and+the+acquisition+of+auxiliaries%2E+Cambridge%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E)
139. Suppes, Patrick. 1974. The semantics of children’s language. American Psychologist 29(2). 103– 114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036026 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036026)
140. Theakston, Anna & Lieven, Elena & Pine, Julian & Rowland, Caroline. 2001. The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of Child Language 28(1). 127–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900004608 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900004608)
141. Tommerdahl, Jodi & Kilpatrick, Cynthia. 2014. The reliability of morphological analyses in language samples. Journal of Language Testing 31(1). 3–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0265532213485570 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/)
142. Tyler, Matthew. 2022. Non-valency-increasing causatives in a Distributive morphology perspective. Talk presented at LAGB 2022, 15–18 September. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tyler%2C+Matthew%2E+2022%2E+Non%2Dvalency%2Dincreasing+causatives+in+a+Distributive+morphology+perspective%2E+Talk+presented+at+LAGB+2022%2C+15%E2%80%9318+September%2E)
143. Valian, Virginia. 1991. Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40(1–2). 21–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90046-7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90046-7)
144. van Hout, Angeliek. 2016. Lexical and grammatical aspect. In Lidz, Jeff & Pater, Joe & Snyder, William (eds.), Handbook of developmental linguistics, 587–610. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199601264.013.25 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199601264.013.25)
145. Van Houten, Lori. 1986. Role of maternal input in the acquisition process: The communicative strategies of adolescent and older mothers with their language learning children. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Van+Houten%2C+Lori%2E+1986%2E+Role+of+maternal+input+in+the+acquisition+process%3A+The+communicative+strategies+of+adolescent+and+older+mothers+with+their+language+learning+children%2E+Paper+presented+at+the+11)
146. van Kampen, Jacqueline. 1997. First steps in wh-movement. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=van+Kampen%2C+Jacqueline%2E+1997%2E+First+steps+in+wh%2Dmovement%2E+Utrecht%3A+Universiteit+Utrecht+dissertation%2E)
147. van Rooy, Robert. 2004. Signalling games select Horn strategies. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4). 493–527. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000024403.88733.3f [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ling.0000024403.88733.3f)
148. van Valin, Robert & Wilkins, David. 1996. The case for “effector”: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Shibatani, Masayoshi & Thompson, Sandra (eds.), Grammatical constructions, 289– 322. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003. 0011 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003)
149. Wang, Jing & Shirai, Yasuhiro. 2015. The development of third person singular present form -s. In Ayoun, Dalila (ed.), The acquisition of the present, 1–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.196.01wan [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/z.196.01wan)
150. Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English auxiliairies. Structure and history, vol. 66 (Cambridge studies in linguistics). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Warner%2C+Anthony+R%2E+1993%2E+English+auxiliairies%2E+Structure+and+history%2C+vol%2E+66+%28Cambridge+studies+in+linguistics%29%2E)
151. Warren-Leubecker, Amye. 1982. Sex differences in speech to children: Georgia Institute of Technology dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Warren%2DLeubecker%2C+Amye%2E+1982%2E+Sex+differences+in+speech+to+children%3A+Georgia+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E)
152. Weist, Richard M & Pawlak, Aleksandra & Hoffman, Karen. 2009. Finiteness systems and lexical aspect in child Polish and English. Linguistics 47(6). 1321–1350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ LING.2009.046 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/)
153. Wells, Gordon. 1981. Learning through interaction, volume 1: the study of language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wells%2C+Gordon%2E+1981%2E+Learning+through+interaction%2C+volume+1%3A+the+study+of+language+development%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
154. Wiese, Heike. 2009. Grammatical innovation in multiethnic urban Europe: New linguistic practices among adolescents. Lingua 119(5). 782–806. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua. 2008.11.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua)
155. Wilson, Elspeth & Katsos, Napoleon. 2020. Acquiring implicatures. In Schneider, Klaus P. & Ifantidou, Elly (eds.), Handbooks of pragmatics. Developmental and clinical pragmatics, 118–148. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431056-005 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431056-005)
156. Wilson, Elspeth Amabel. 2017. Children’s development of quantity, relevance and manner implicature understanding and the role of the speaker’s epistemic state: University of Cambridge dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wilson%2C+Elspeth+Amabel%2E+2017%2E+Children%E2%80%99s+development+of+quantity%2C+relevance+and+manner+implicature+understanding+and+the+role+of+the+speaker%E2%80%99s+epistemic+state%3A+University+of+Cambridge+dissertation%2E)
157. Wittenberg, Eva. 2018. He Gave My Nose a Kick or He Kicked My Nose? Argument structure alternations and event construal. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 68. 337–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2018.08.008 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2018.08.008)
158. Yamakoshi, Kyoko & Miura, Kaori & Jorinbo, Hanako & Angata, Kayoko & Yamasaki, Kaori. 2018. An experimental study of children’s comprehension of lexical and productive causatives in Japanese. In Nishiyama, Kunio & Kishimoto, Hideki & Aldridge, Edith (eds.), Topics in theoretical Asian linguistics: Studies in honor of John B. Whitman, 229–250. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.12yam [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.12yam)
159. Zukowski, Andrea. 1996. Auxiliary auxiliaries: Spare parts in early speech. Manuscript, Boston University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Zukowski%2C+Andrea%2E+1996%2E+Auxiliary+auxiliaries%3A+Spare+parts+in+early+speech%2E+Manuscript%2C+Boston+University%2E)