User talk:Lizdahl44/sandbox

Hi Liz--I am leaving you a message! Rcsender (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message! Here's my reply! Lizdahl44 (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Start I think overall this article looks really good, it is well formatted and arranged in a way that is easy to read. Obviously the beginning is just workshopping but the actual 'article' part looks good.There are however, a couple parts where you say 'others say' or 'some linguists' which should either be given a specific source or deleted. Even the sentence that says "some linguists, such as Gary Marcus" would probably benefit from saying just "Linguist Gary Marcus's research shows..." or the like. Lord2019 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very good so far, you have a lot of information down for all sections and references and other articles are included in a very effective way. I like the way you avoid using just 'some people' where you say 'Some linguists, such as Gary Marcus'. I do think that each section about the arguments for and against could use more explained arguments from other references. Since there is a section called 'Examples of Direct Negative Evidence', there should probably be more than one section giving a certain type of example of this direct negative evidence. I'm not sure if there's a way to avoid this, but the number of times the word 'evidence' is used in the definition section sounds a bit strange. Gty97 (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very organized, I really like how each paragraph flows to the next. I like your use of examples as well, helps as a source of reference and just a better understanding. Gsoyoye (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is organized nicely and has a lot of detail and sources. However, under the Examples of Direct Negative Evidence section, the end of the second paragraph needs to be revised, as the sentences are a bit unclear. Cgilchri (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in very good shape. Here are some comments to help you further improve it. 1) In the section on Examples of Direct Negative Evidence, I think you want to have some examples of explicit correction and children's failure to take up those corrections. (e.g, the classic example from David McNeill). There's a good discussion of the explicit correction problem in Pinker 1989. 2) Be sure to distinguish direct negative evidence that comes in the form of an explicit correction from direct implicit negative evidence, which comes in the form or repeats or recasts. 3) In addition to the claims purporting to show that implicit negative evidence works, please also include examples where it has been shown not to work (e.g., the Morgan, Bonamo and Travis 1995 paper). 4) Pinker 1989 reviews examples where it is shown that not all children respond to implicit negative evidence. 5) It seems to me that, more generally, you could benefit from framing the negative evidence question as having three subparts: (a) does it exist? i.e., do parents respond differentially to ungrammatical utterances than to grammatical utterances? (b) if it exists, does it exist in a usable form? that is, in principle, could a child distinguish the negative evidence from the positive evidence? (e.g., do recasts occur after ungrammatical utterances at a rate that is distinguishable from recasts after grammatical utterances?) (c) if the evidence exists and is usable, do children actually use it? (e.g., are there studies showing that children who receive more implicit negative evidence learn the relevant grammatical features earlier than those who don't? are there studies showing that the implicit negative evidence is predictive of children's elimination of the ungrammatical features? etc). For each of these questions, then, you could present both the positive and the negative results from the literature. I hope this helps. JeffLidz (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This article looks great so far and since I'm on the other side of the argument, I can only provide some editing suggestions. The first sentence is a bit hard to read, I would suggest something like "Negative evidence in language acquisition shows which grammatical constructions in a language are ungrammatical by [...]. For me, having "that demonstrates" right next to "which grammatical" read as two independent clauses. Other than that, your sentence construction seems to look good. However, I did notice some simple typos and would recommend combing through once more for spelling. Maggicurrier (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely organized with numerous citations! Maybe rewording the first paragraph in the definition section would help improve readability. Couple places where I got confused are "...which grammatical constructions in a language are ungrammatical", "after an incorrect, often ungrammatical, utterance" (what would be an incorrect utterance that is not ungrammatical?) and "the conventional standards of grammar in a language and the correct model of grammar structures, not communicative ones" (maybe specify what is meant by "communicative ones"). Jchung10 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! The article looks really great so far! The Definition section of the article is good and does a good job of explaining everything. The only thing that you guys could improve on is that there should be one concrete definition for 'direct negative evidence.' The comparison you make is very good and effective, but a clear definition would be very helpful. The organization of the article as a whole is very good, and the writing style is professional and easy to read. Overall, I think you guys are on the right track. KevinHipsman (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]