Saussure proposed the division language/parole and argued that language can be studied as a formal system. Fifty years later Chomsky declared competence the core interest of linguistics. Although for years Generative second language acquisition (GenSLA) has adopted this view, a number of recent publications poke holes into the competence bubble. Westergaard's article is among those that pushes the boundaries of Generative Grammar (GG). In our commentary, we propose that Westergaard's Micro-cue Model (McM) and the Linguistic Proximity Model (LPM) may actually be closer to a Usage-Based Approach (UbA) to language development than to the original spirit of GG, and that Westergaard's sound, evidence-based proposals face some drag by being presented under the aegis of GG. Specifically, the assumption that all learning derives from general cognitive processes--hence, no essential difference between L1, L2, and Ln; the use of cues that are emergent and acquired piecemeal, and the idea that language development proceeds from the specific to the general, are all hallmarks of the UbA. We believe Westergaard's contribution is important and timely and should encourage a better appreciation of the work being done in other domains as well as an understanding of how the different approaches complement each other.