In a recent paper published in the Journal of Language Evolution, Kauhanen, Einhaus & Walkden (https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzad005, KEW) challenge the results presented in one of my papers (Koplenig, Royal Society Open Science, 6, 181274 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181274), in which I tried to show through a series of statistical analyses that large numbers of L2 (second language) speakers do not seem to affect the (grammatical or statistical) complexity of a language. To this end, I focus on the way in which the Ethnologue assesses language status: a language is characterised as vehicular if, in addition to being used by L1 (first language) speakers, it should also have a significant number of L2 users. KEW criticise both the use of vehicularity as a (binary) indicator of whether a language has a significant number of L2 users and the idea of imputing a zero proportion of L2 speakers to non-vehicular languages whenever a direct estimate of that proportion is unavailable. While I recognise the importance of post-publication commentary on published research, I show in this rejoinder that both points of criticism are explicitly mentioned and analysed in my paper. In addition, I also comment on other points raised by KEW and demonstrate that both alternative analyses offered by KEW do not stand up to closer scrutiny.

翻译：在最近发表于《语言进化杂志》的一篇论文中，Kauhanen、Einhaus 与 Walkden（https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzad005，以下简称 KEW）对我的一篇论文（Koplenig，《皇家学会开放科学》，6, 181274 (2019)，https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181274）中的结果提出质疑。我原论文通过一系列统计分析试图表明，大量第二语言（L2）使用者似乎并不影响语言的（语法或统计）复杂度。为此，我重点关注《民族语》评估语言地位的方式：若一种语言除被第一语言（L1）使用者使用外，还拥有大量 L2 使用者，则将其定性为“通用语”。KEW 既批评了将“通用语”作为（二元的）语言是否拥有大量 L2 使用者指标的做法，也批评了在无法直接估计 L2 使用者比例时，对非通用语语言假定其 L2 使用者比例为零的设想。尽管我承认对已发表研究进行刊后评论的重要性，但在此回应中，我将说明上述两点批评均已在原论文中明确提及并分析。此外，我还对 KEW 提出的其他观点进行了评述，并证明 KEW 提供的两种替代分析均经不起更细致的检验。