Kidd and Garcia cogently articulate scientific problems related to intellectual merit that are associated with the lack of language diversity in L1 acquisition research. However, science must also consider stakes related to the broader impacts of research. Focusing on Indigenous language communities in North America, I discuss ways that the lack of language coverage causes linguistic science to fall short in making broader impacts in areas such as speech-language pathology and language revitalization programs.
AllenS. E. M.DenchC. B.IsaksonK. (2019). InuLARSP: An adaptation of the language assessment remediation and screening procedure for Inuktitut. In BallM. J.FletcherP.CrystalD. (Eds.), Grammatical profiles: Further languages of LARSP (pp. 270–296). Multilingual Matters.
2.
CheeM. R.HenkeR. E. (to appear). Child and child-directed speech in North American languages. In JanyC.MithunM.RiceK. (Eds.), The languages and linguistics of Indigenous North America: A comprehensive guide (Vol. 1). De Gruyter Mouton.
3.
HenkeR. E. (2019). The development of possession in the L1 acquisition of Northern East Cree. Journal of Child Language, 46, 980–997.
4.
HenkeR. E.BrittainJ. (2022). Obviative demonstratives in Northern East Cree: Insights from child-directed speech. International Journal of American Linguistics, 88(1), 53–93.
5.
CasagrandeJ. B. (1948). Comanche baby language. International Journal of American Linguistics, 14(1), 11–14.
6.
HintonL.HaleK. (Eds.), (2001). The green book of language revitalization in practice. Brill.
O’GradyW.HeatonR.BulalangS.KingJ. (2021). The role of input in language revitalization: The case of lexical development. Language Documentation & Conservation, 15, 433–457.
11.
PeltierS. (2011). Providing culturally sensitive and linguistically appropriate services: An insider construct. Canadian Journal of Speech-language Pathology & Audiology, 35(2), 126–134.
12.
TitievM. (1946). Suggestions for the further study of Hopi. International Journal of American Linguistics, 12(2), 89–91.
