"Why would the so-called "feral child" phenomenon (a phenomenon that is not well-studied, BTW) contradict anything that I've said?"

See below:

"Human kids who miss the critical-exposure period almost invariably show impaired language acquisition skills."

But the studies I'm aware of are that there are cases where it is not a matter of impairement, but complete absence.  That is not consistent with your argument.

I'm not sure what the point of pointing out that it is not well-studied is.  We should be glad for that!  And yet, if we were trying to control for variables, the question of whether or not language is an instinct or part of socialization (or a combination of the two), if we can eliminate socialization as a possibility... and the result is NO language abilities, that would suggest to me (and I admit, I'm only an idiot  ) that you cannot say that this is a biological trait that everyone is born with.

"That might help you to understand what I am talking about."

My wife is a special ed teacher and I read her text books, plus I've taken a grad course on the subject.  I wouldn't say that I'm right with ya, cuz that was a few years back, but I confess I found the whole subject matter easy to master.  I was offended I had to take the class.  I'm sure it will come back to me if I care to let it.

"Sntjohnny, have you understood nothing at all that I wrote?"

Actually, I confess I've read very little of it.  :)   I have so many irons to put in the fire.

"First of all, the critical period hypothesis does not mean that no language will happen. It means that language acquisition will be impaired."

Right, but if during 'this period' language acquisition simply DOES NOT HAPPEN, that contradicts your statement earlier:

"Children will acquire language whether others attempt to teach it or not."

Perhaps you do not stand by this statement anymore?

I cited Gopnik, Meltzoff, and Kuhl's study that showed that the BRAIN.  PHYSICALLY.  FRIES.  THE SYNAPSES.  IF.  THEY.  ARE.  NOT.  USED.  I believe in that study language skills are specifically cited.  As I understand it, I am only citing, really, the Hebbian Process.  Use it or lose it.

"You have stumbled across a single reference in a rather vast literature on the subject,"

Actually, I'm just reaching into the vast reserves of knowledge.  I didn't go looking for this, and so far, you have failed to grapple with the point that I was making on it.

Of course, let's not forget that you used to teach this at the graduate level.  I do not have the original study (I might, I just don't know where).  Why don't you post it for us to peruse.  Ah well, I saw a smiley at the end of your post, so let me skim ahead....

"And that is why I pointed out that I had special expertise in this area--so that you wouldn't jump to that hasty conclusion."

That was Ragnar, as I understand it.

"Nevertheless, I am not surprised that you have jumped to another hasty conclusion without knowing what you were talking about."

But you've not addressed my point, which is that there is a physiological effect where if synapses are not used in the Hebbian process, they are simply pruned away.  In theory, given modern views on neuroplasticity, they might be 're-grown,' but only by exposure to the stimulus.  Thus, if the child is later exposed to language, the brain may be able to fix things.

But your position is:  "Children will acquire language whether others attempt to teach it or not"

If they are never taught it, how on earth can the brain re-acquire the physical composition to be able to use language?

Didn't Hubel and Wiesel win the Nobel prize by showing that kittens deprived of visual input during a 'critical period' would in fact be blind forever?  A perfectly healthy eye, but deprived of the sensory input, that was the end.

How is this true for cats regarding sight but not for humans regarding language?

Oh, inform us oh great master...  

--->  sntjohnny        <----Cop