Albright, A. & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition 90(2), 119–61.Google Scholar

Alegre, M. & Gordon, P. (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40(1), 41–61.Google Scholar

Ambridge, B. (2010). Children's judgments of regular and irregular novel past tense forms: new data on the dual- versus single-route debate. Developmental Psychology 46(6), 1497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. M. (2008). Is structure dependence an innate constraint? New experimental evidence from children's complex question production. Cognitive Science 32, 222–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L (2012). Statistical learning: from learning items to generalizing rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21, 170–6.Google Scholar

Bannard, C. & Matthews, D. (2008) Stored word sequences in language learning – the effect of familiarity on children's repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science 19, 241–8.Google Scholar

Bates, E. & Mac Whinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. &Gleitman, L. (eds.), Language acquisition: the state of the art (pp. 173–218). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chang, F., Dell, G. S. & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113, 234–72.Google Scholar

Chang, F., Kidd, E. & Rowland, C. F. (2013). Prediction in processing is a by-product of language learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36, 350–1.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., March, E. J., Nathan, M . J. & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14, 4–58.Google Scholar

Ebbinghaus, H. (1913 [1885]). Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar

Fodor, D. D. (1998). Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27, 339–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2010). Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of optional infinite errors across languages: a comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model. Journal of Child Language 36, 643–69.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hale, J. (2006). Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30, 609–42.Google Scholar

Hsu, H. J. & Bishop, D. V. M. (2010). Grammatical difficulties in children with specific language impairment (SLI): Is learning deficient? Human Development 53, 264–77.Google Scholar

Hurtado, N., Marchman, V. A. & Fernald, A. (2008). Does input influence uptake? Links between maternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in Spanish-learning children. Developmental Science 11, F31–9.Google Scholar

Hutton, J. & Kidd, E. (2011). Structural priming in comprehension of relative clauses: in search of a frequency by regularity interaction. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: typology, processing, and function (pp. 227–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61, 23–62.Google Scholar

Jones, G., Gobet, F. & Pine, J. M. (2008). Computer simulations of developmental change: the contributions of working memory capacity and long-term knowledge. Cognitive Science 32(7), 1148–76.Google Scholar

Kidd, E. (2012). Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Developmental Psychology 48, 171–84.Google Scholar

Kidd, E. (2013). The role of verbal working memory in children's sentence comprehension: a critical review. Topics in Language Disorders 33, 208–23.Google Scholar

Kidd, E. & Lum, J. (2008). Sex differences in past tense overregularalization. Developmental Science 11, 882–9.Google Scholar

Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A. & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children's me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language 36(5), 1091–114.Google Scholar

Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children's omission of infinitival-to. First Language 29(3), 315–41.Google Scholar

Lewis, J. D. & Elman, J. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. In Barbora Skarabela, Sarah Fish, & Anna H.-J. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 1, pp. 359–370). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maratsos, M. (2000). More overregularisations after all: new data and discussion on Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen & Xu. Journal of Child Language 27, 183–212.Google Scholar

Marchman, V. A. (1997). Children's productivity in the English past tense: the role of frequency, phonology and neighborhood structure. Cognitive Science 21(3), 283–304.Google Scholar

Marchman, V., Wulfeck, B. & Ellis Weismer, S. (1999). Morphological productivity in children with normal language and SLI: a study of the English past tense. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42, 206–19.Google Scholar

Maslen, R. J. C., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M. & Tomasello, M. (2004). A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1319–33.Google Scholar

Matthews, D. E. & Theakston, A. L. (2006). Errors of omission in English-speaking children's production of plurals and the past tense: the effects of frequency, phonology, and competition. Cognitive Science 30(6), 1027–52.Google Scholar

Nitschke, S., Kidd, E. & Serratrice, L. (2010). First language transfer and long-term structural priming in comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 25, 94–114.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Science 36, 329–47.Google Scholar

Pine, J. M., Freudenthal, D., Krajewski, G. & Gobet, F. (2013). Do young children have adult-like syntactic categories? Zipf's law and the case of the determiner. Cognition 127(3), 345–60.Google Scholar

Prasada, S. & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 1–56.Google Scholar

Räsänen, S. H., Ambridge, B. & Pine, J. M. (2014). Infinitives or bare stems? Are English-speaking children defaulting to the highest-frequency form? Journal of Child Language 41(4), 756–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Reali, F. & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science 29, 1007–28.Google Scholar

Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: an essay in the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Romberg, A. R. & Saffran, J. R. (2010). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(6), 906–14.Google ScholarPubMed

Seidenberg, M. S. & MacDonald, M. C. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 23, 569–88.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Twomey, K., Chang, F. & Ambridge, B. (2014). Do as I say, not as I do: a lexical distributional account of English locative verb class acquisition. Cognitive Psychology 73, 41–71Google Scholar

Wells, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Race, D. S., Acheson, D. J. & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Experience and sentence comprehension: statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250–71.Google Scholar