Rethinking the critical period for language: New insights into an old question from American Sign Language.

Abstract

We thank the commentators for their thoughtful critiques, which we found both insightful and stimulating to our own thinking. Our first response is that, while debates about the CPL in theoretical contexts are important, the vigor and intensity of these debates should not overshadow the fact that the main goal of our article was to highlight a finding of vital importance: Sufficient language input in early childhood matters deeply because it has long-term consequences (Lillo-Martin, 2018). Woll sums up this point both succinctly and poignantly in her report of a similar case of very late L1 exposure in adulthood who had decades of experience: “For a [deaf] child who, even in the context of early intervention, does not acquire a spoken language, the danger is that they will never have native-like mastery of any L1.” This is what truly matters. Our hope is that our keynote article and the accompanying commentaries might have a positive effect on clinical practice, educational policy, and even parental choice in this regard. In what follows, we discuss the main issues arising from the commentaries. First we note the points of agreement followed by a clarification of what we did not claim in our article. Researchers continue to debate what the shape of the AoA function looks like and its theoretical implications, which we address third. We then address the issues raised as to whether late L1 acquisition and late L2 learning differ in degree or kind, and last we discuss what we mean when we say that language acquisition during post-natal brain growth creates the capacity to learn language.