User talk:KevinHipsman/sandbox

Peer Review
It looks like you're off to a good start and have lots of good sources. I would say that your article could use from some more formal language. It currently reads as very casual and could benefit from some elaboration on the key points. The section on 'Phonology' for example, makes a lot of sense if you already have a background knowledge of linguistics, but I think could be unclear to a newcomer. Lord2019 (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Emily, Thanks for pointing things out. we will work on make the sentences more technical and clearer. Gsoyoye (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestion! In addition to further extrapolating on key concepts, we will link to other (hopefully) existing articles. Maggicurrier (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Good information so far, a lot of the general information about each section is a good place to start. Recommend adding in links to other articles, possible instead of re-explaining them here in your own. You should try to avoid conveying information in the form of a question, such as 'Since language input is “opaque,” how can a baby create its own grammar?'. My impression was also that the ultimate goal of the sections Phonology and Semantics is to be mainly focused on examples of the argument from those fields. What you have now is a good overview of how they relate, but I think adding in the examples from different papers would be a good idea. Gty97 (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, okay got it! fix the format and try to be less bias. Gsoyoye (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks! We'll make sure to give more precise examples and explanations for the Phonology and Semantics sections. Maggicurrier (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree--I think you guys have some really great thoughts to contribute to this article! Apart from needing to add headings and make this article look more like a Wikipedia page, I would suggest trying to find some more studies that contribute evidence to the POS argument. It could be helpful to even divide the Semantics and Phonology sections further so that there are subheadings with specific headings about different experiments that have been conducted (I think the other POS group sort of did that, so you could look at their page to see what I mean). You also could think about referencing some of the things that were tested in the studies you mentioned in the rebuttal section (i.e. what kind of information do people argue children learn before they are born? Phonology?  Syntax?  Semantics?). But you guys seem to have a pretty solid grasp on the information and the main ideas that would be helpful to include in this article. I would just keep looking for more information so you can include more concrete examples in your article and expand on the ideas that you already have in your articles. Rcsender (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Adding the subheadings under Semantics and Phonology will be helpful. Maggicurrier (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This is definitely a good start, as there is a decent amount of information in each section. However, some sentences may need rewording, such as " The Poverty of the Stimulus argues that humans are predisposed to be accepting of certain phonological rules and patterns" and the second sentence under the semantics section, which could be reworded, have a comma as opposed to a semi-colon, or it could even be split into two sentences. Also, like everyone else has mentioned, examples would be great to further get the point across. Cgilchri (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! I'll make sure to add them in! Maggicurrier (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You have a good start to your argument and the layout you plan to have. Something that my group is trying to do with our article on POS is to have less focus on the information against the argument and a little more for the argument. The semantics and phonology sections are smaller than the rebuttal section and since the article is on POS and not arguments against POS it may be a good idea to focus more on the evidence for POS and not against it. Also our two groups should definitely come together at some point - we are working on the same page! I think it would be a good idea for us to try to figure out what layout we want to follow and who is working on which section. I also wonder how necessary the history section is to the POS topic. I think that could be included in the beginning introductory paragraph since it is not all that relevant in understanding the POS. And don't forget to format the sandbox page like the actual article might look! I know it seems extraneous but I think it might help you visualize how the page will look when you're on the final product. Prosetta (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You have a good point about the History section. I'll try combining it with the Intro to see how it flows. I definitely agree we should meet! Maggicurrier (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I like how you try to be very clear with your explanations. It is easy to read to people with not much prior knowledge in linguistics. You should start linking other Wikipedia pages for linguistic concepts like "Universal Grammar" and attach citations directly after sentences. Your first sentence in the rebuttal section sounds like something that would appear in the literature review section of a research paper. Jchung10 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What everyone says above is right. Your next step is to dig in and find some examples and explain them. Some classic papers with examples from phonology are: Halle, M. 1978, "knowledge unlearned and untaught", Halle, M. 1961. "On the Role of Simplicity in Linguistic Descriptions." There may also be some discussion in Chomsky & Halle 1968, The sound pattern of english. Maybe also Bridget Samuels. In semantics, some good examples come from word learning. See Gleitman's "hard words" paper. Also see Hunter & Lidz 2012 on quantifiers. Crain's "Language Acquisition in the absence of experience" also has good examples from semantics. See also Crain's recent book on semantic acquisition. JeffLidz (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Try to give more detail in your phonological learning example. Explain the argument, don't just say the facts. JeffLidz (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You also need to give an example or two from semantics. JeffLidz (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)