User talk:AVCharles1138/sandbox

Peer review by Nina Cheonkam Jeong
Dear Andrew:

I think you are already doing great jobs and Lucy made great comments on the article. Here are a few things that I would like to add.

1) Leading section: I sort of feel the transition toward the last paragraph is a little bit awkward. I think it would be better if it were situated after the first two mini paragraph. 2) Areas of study: Okay... topic(?)-based vs. subfield-based... I think I got the idea of this part, but it seems that quite much emphasis is laid on just explaining what subfields of linguistics... I think just providing links about them and reinforcing the parts pertinent to psycholinguistic research would be better. 3) Origin of term: As you mentioned, it absolutely needs to be developed. 4) Language acquisition (last paragraph): I think we have just learned that... except for extreme (?) behaviorists such as Skinner, most scholars admit that "the human ability to use language is qualitatively different from any sort of animal ability," not just advocates of Chomsky. 5) Reading: If this is relevant to language comprehension, it would be better to belong to the preceding section, not an independent section. 6) Methodologies: I think tasks and techniques are mixed in this section. 7) Neuroimaging: I agree with Lucy's point about this. I could not a clear connection between the surgery and the language research; the author just mentions the opportunities researchers might get. I also would like to say that some references are needed this part. 8) Computational modeling: I think the expression "useful" is inadequate... I feel like the author is accessing the value of it. I also would like to say that computational modeling is not only used for psycholinguistics, but also for other fields. If some account about how this is utilized in psycholinguistics is added, it would be better. 9) Issues and areas of research: I also agree with Lucy's point about this.

Ninackjeong (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)