1 language learning in early childhood preview

American Sign
Language (ASL)
 make use of grammatical markers to indicate such things
as time (for example, past tense) and number. These markers are expressed
through specific hand or body movements.
Elissa Newport (1990) and her colleagues studied the ability of deaf users of
ASL to produce and comprehend grammatical markers. They compared
Native signers (who were exposed to ASL from birth), Early signers (who
began using ASL between four and six years of age), and Late signers (who
began learning ASL after age 12). They found no difference between the
groups in some aspects of their use of ASL, for example in vocabulary
knowledge. However, on tests focusing on grammatical markers, the Native
group used the markers more consistently than the Early group who, in turn,
used them more consistently than the Late group. The researchers concluded
that their study supports the hypothesis that there is a critical period for first
language acquisition, whether that language is oral or gestural. There has
been controversy regarding the importance of exposing deaf children to sign
language as early as possible. Some parents and educators, as well as speech
and language therapists, have argued that early exposure to sign language
could interfere with children’s development of oral language. However,
current research suggests that even for children who are given cochlear
implants and thus have greater access to oral language, exposure to sign
language adds to—rather than interferes with—their overall development of
language knowledge and skill (Humphries et al., 2012).
Another line of research that has given new insight into the importance of
early language experience comes from studies of ‘international adoptees’.
These are children who were adopted at an early age by families who did not
speak the language the child had heard during infancy. In their review of
studies of international adoptees, Johanne Paradis, Fred Genesee, and Martha
Crago (2011) concluded that cognitive and linguistic outcomes were
generally very positive. Some comparisons of the adoptees’ language with

---

that of children the same age who had always heard the same language
showed that subtle differences persist even after several years, but these are
not the kinds of differences that most people would notice, nor do they
prevent the adoptees from successfully using their new language. Here again,
of course, one cannot know whether something other than a late exposure to
the language spoken in the adoptive environment also contributed to these
subtle differences.
It is clear, therefore, that late exposure does not mean that a child cannot
successfully learn and use a new language. Nevertheless, with continuing
research on children’s linguistic behaviours and intuitions, as well as the
studies of infants’ speech perception that we saw above, there is growing
evidence that language acquisition begins at birth, and possibly even before,
as the child’s brain is shaped by exposure to the language(s) in the
environment. We will return to the issue of early and late language
experiences in discussions of bilingualism and second language learning.