Talk:Semantic bootstrapping

Constructive Criticism Intro section

Your definition of semantic bootstrapping is quite clear. However, I don’t think you should use the word “semantic” in the very first sentence, because you are still defining what that word means. Perhaps you can use some of the wording from the second sentence, or combine the 1st and 2nd sentences to highlight what semantic means from the very beginning. ‘Iteratively’ is an intimidating word…consider rewording, or at least not using it twice in back-to-back sentences. Logic section

Consider linking to the Wikipedia article for Steven Pinker. 2nd paragraph (minor editing suggestion): “With this inference, the children are now able to recognize the ordering and relations of semantic categories in the language.” This sentence reads oddly. Perhaps say, “…children can recognize…” – “the children” sounds too specific. 2nd paragraph: This sentence is a bit wordy: “Grammatical rules can then be inferred from the syntactical structures observed and thus, from just an understanding of semantic categories and the initial mapping of semantic to syntactic categories, children can bootstrap their way up to grammar formation.” Consider splitting it into two sentences for greater clarity. Thanks for linking to our syntactic bootstrapping article! Evidence section:

Be sure to edit for typos. Nice to have a table to break up the text. Although I only glanced at the table and didn’t really understand it, it provided breathing space between the paragraphs. For the Gropen et al. paragraph, I suggest giving an example sentence so the reader understands what a locative verb is. Challenges section:

Strong opening. Any sentences that have the words “For example” should have a comma after “example.” Great job giving only very brief descriptions of challenges to semantic bootstrapping and linking to other pages that provide more information. This keeps your article focused and concise, and allows the reader to determine whether she wants to learn more about these specific issues or not. The last sentence of the Challenges section has multiple grammatical errors. Overall: Great job! You have a really strong article. You give lots of strong citations to support your ideas. Good job giving details but not rambling. I feel like if I knew nothing about semantic bootstrapping, I could read this article and learn the main points well. - LiaK (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccacm (talk • contribs)

Plans for editing the Semantic Bootstrapping Page:
Ngkawing (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The existing definition of the Semantic Bootstrapping on the Bootstrapping (linguistics) page seems to be too general, it could be lengthened and elaborated more in detail.
 * Examples such as experiments done by researchers to prove the concept of Semantic Bootstrapping could be added.
 * The opposing view of Semantic Bootstrapping could be added.


 * The relationship between semantic bootstrapping and syntactic and prosodic bootstrapping could be added. Rebeccacm (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we need more experiments and counters. They seem really difficult to find. Jtwelsh (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Semantic Bootstrapping

 * Pinker, S. (1987). The bootstrapping problem in language acquisition. Mechanisms of language acquisition, 399-441.
 * Kirby, S. (2009). Semantic scaffolding in first language acquisition: The acquisition of raising-to-object and object control. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL. Ngkawing (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinker, S. (1984). The semantic bootstrapping hypothesis. Mechanisms of language acquisition, 406-413.
 * Rondal JA, & Cession A. (1990). Input evidence regarding the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis. Journal Of Child Language, 17(3), 711-7. Rebeccacm (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Bowerman, Melissa; Levinson, Steve, eds. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 450–474.Jtwelsh (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

General Discussion of Bootstrapping Interactions

 * Lila R. Gleitman, Barbara Landau (1994). Lila R. The Acquisition of the Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MI. Print.Jtwelsh (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC) (This one has a large compilation of papers)

Semantic Bootstrapping Experiments

 * Kirby, S. (2010). Passives in first language acquisition: What causes the delay?. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16(1), 13.
 * Parr N & Breheny R (2010). For want of a VP: a study in semantic bootstrapping. University College London. pp. 64-77.Jtwelsh (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Limits of Semantic Bootstrapping

 * Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language acquisition, 1(1), 3-55. Ngkawing (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Opposition to Semantic Bootstrapping

 * Levin, B. (1993). Introduction: the theoretical perspective. Verb classes and Alternations, 1-19. Rebeccacm (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Intro:
"The child may recognize, for example, that words representing different actions are used for the same semantic purpose. Similarly, names of objects and people are used in their own set of semantic roles." I don't quite understand what's being said here. If verbs are representing different actions, shouldn't they have different meanings and thus different semantic properties? The second sentence here is vague, what is this set of semantic roles? "While semantic bootstrapping does not explain all language acquisition, it provides a fundamental set of grammatical elements and rules upon which additional learning, through various proposed methods, may be built." Be more specific. Pinker used the word "bootstrapping" for a reason, because he said it helps the child start to learn syntax but doesn't provide all the information. What exactly does semantic bootstrapping explain in language acquisition, and what doesn't it?

Evidence:
For the evidence section, I would recommend not explaining the procedures of the experiments in such detail, but instead focusing on the results. Also, include more experiments. From reading this section, I don't understand what the Rondal and Cession experiment says about semantic bootstrapping. There needs to be more explanation about what this experiment means and why it's evidence for semantic bootstrapping. As-is, I'm not sure what this data means or how it specifically supports semantic bootstrapping. Gropen, Pinker, Hollander and Goldberg is better, as I understand from this section how it supports semantic bootstrapping, but I think that more explanation would still be a good idea. Focus more on what the experiments results were and how they support the theory, the exact methodology of the experiment probably doesn't need as much explanation. What's a holistic vs. partitive action?

Challenges:
It would be a good idea to look into Pinker's responses to Gleitman's criticisms: for example Pinker claims Syntactic and Semantic bootstrapping aren't opposing theories. Semantic bootstrapping claims that children use semantics to learn syntax. This section makes it sound like semantic bootstrapping is used to learn verb meanings. From what I understand, Semantic bootstrapping does not make any claims about how children learn verb meanings, only how they learn the syntactic frame of the verb. So I don't understand the criticism here. [Verbs in which there is no action associated with it like ... ] > [Verbs which have no action associated with them, like ... ]JordanAMSmith (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

 * It looks like a lot of evidence has been gathered, the results just need to be put together in a concise and relative way.
 * “While semantic bootstrapping does not explain all language acquisition, it provides a fundamental set of grammatical elements and rules upon which additional learning, through various proposed methods, may be built.” What are some shortcomings or unanswered questions of semantic bootstrapping? You said it doesn’t answer all the questions but never went into more depth. What exactly are these methods and elements? Are there any examples you can give readers when making statements in your paragraphs? Such as the example you gave in the challenges section.
 * Is there more evidence against you can provide against semantic bootstrapping? Such as why it is difficult for a child to figure out the meaning of a word just based on witnessing the event. Knowlin4 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

 * Obviously, the organization could use some structuring, but it seems you have a fair number of sources, and a fair amount of information written down. For the "evidence" section, I'm not sure how it would be divided up, but from what it looks like you have down already, you might consider putting evidence for nouns, verbs, grammatical function categories, etc, in their own respective sections.
 * Good decision to include a criticism section, to show opposing views.
 * It seems that the majority of what has been written down so far (talking about the 3 experiments) comes from 1 or few sources, so just remember to use different/multiple sources in the same section, in order to avoid a section being completely dominated from just one study.MegaloNickoloff (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Review
Good draft! In terms of organization, I think you need to divide the evidence section into more subsections and just have more sections in general. The logic is clear to me. Of course, more content could be added for the next draft. I think you could divide the introduction into two parts--it was difficult to read the whole paragraph. For the majority of the introduction I think you need to provide citation/s.

For the evidence section, you do not need to go into the details of the experiments: the age ranges (just the average age is enough), how data was analyzed using ANOVA. It was difficult to read the first study with all of the categories there.

The description of the second study was very long. Maybe you could just give the conclusions along with a brief explanation of what children did in the experiments.

I think you have a good section about the challenges. I think you could provide more examples along with the explanation of possible interpretations for the pairs of sentences.

I like the idea of putting "see also" section. It will be great to provide links for other two articles when we finish them. Shushunov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Review
The intro paragraph is good (especially the last sentence) and not too long. I would encourage you to define ‘semantic’ though. You’ve used ‘semantic’ in the definition of ‘semantic bootstrapping,’ and if people don’t know what ‘semantic’ means, it could be a hindrance to understanding the article.

In the Evidence section, I would encourage you to use more sources. You could link to multiple articles/authors when you state some fact about semantic bootstrapping, because many articles will back up the same point, and that will strengthen your article. When you add more sources, it will be even more important to be very explicit about what the results were and connect for the reader why that is significant in semantic bootstrapping. There are currently too many details, and it is difficult to follow the logic of the argument.

Under “Challenges to Semantic Bootstrapping,” there is a typo in example one…the cat should be fleeing, not feeing.

The second paragraph under “Challenges” is quite strong. I like how you link to the Syntactic Bootstrapping page there.

My understanding is that Steven Pinker is a huge voice in the research of semantic bootstrapping, yet he was not mentioned at all in this article. I’d recommend incorporating the article we read in class: Pinker 1984. LiaK (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)