Is there a critical period for L1 but not L2?

Sensitive periods in language development: Do children outperform adults on auditory word-form segmentation?

Children are more successful language learners than adults, yet the nature and cause of this phenomenon are still not well understood. Auditory statistical learning from speech has been a prominent focus of research in the field of language development because it is regarded as a fundamental learning mechanism underlying word segmentation in early language acquisition. However, a handful of studies that investigated developmental trajectories for auditory statistical learning found no clear child advantages. The degree to which the learning task measures explicit rather than implicit mechanisms might obscure a potential advantage for younger learners, as suggested by recent findings. In the present study, we compared children aged 7-12 years and young adults on an adapted version of the task that disentangles explicit and implicit contributions to learning. They were exposed to a continuous stream of speech sounds comprising four repeating trisyllabic pseudowords. Learning of the hidden words was tested (a) online through a target-detection task and (b) offline via a forced-choice word recognition test that included a memory judgement procedure. Both measures revealed comparable learning abilities. However, children's performance on the recognition task showed evidence for both explicit and implicit word knowledge while adults appeared primarily sensitive to explicit memory. Since implicit memory is more stable in time than explicit memory, we suggest that future work should focus more on developmental differences in the nature of the memory that is formed, rather than the strength of learning, when trying to understand child advantages in language acquisition.

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

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.