User talk:Marentette/Draft vocabulary development

Alindsay9, I think it might be helpful to reword the first sentence in the Reference contraint section to remove the double negative "without which it could not proceed...". That is very demanding syntax!. Marentette (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! : ) Alindsay9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

Hi everyone, I attempted to start our 'leading paragraph' so we have something there when we submit to "Did You Know." Please, please edit it!!!!! I don't know much about your sections yet, only my own, so I'm sure it can be improved or made more specific. Also, I think we should delete the brain picture...any thoughts? Alindsay9 (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now there is some conflicting information on the page, because the numbers used in the original page are posted under vocabulary spurt, and the numbers shown by Bloom & Markson are under Vocabulary Development in School-Age Children. Just wondering how we should reconcile this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eheiberg (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Deep six the brain picture. It is barely relevant to this article. It would be good though if we can think creatively about vocabulary development and what a reasonable picture might look like. My best ideas at this point are parent and child with book, school-age child reading a book, or a spelling bee picture. The last is a bit lame. Paula Marentette (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead: Towards the end of the lead paragraph (starting with Iffants learn language rapidly ... " there are a number of things that seem very relevant to language in general but no specific link is made to vocab dev't. I would remove most of that, remember that you aren't writing a detailed essay. Best to only include information directly relevant to the topic and at a general level of interest. Focus on providing a brief mention of what will be developed in the article. This is perhaps what Alindsay9 is recommending above.

Also I recommend that you do not use the researcher names in sentences. Although I am encouraging that in class, here it is likely of little use to the general reader. Removing names will also support making the content more direct and focussed. Marentette (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Early Word Learning Nice work Julietbee. I have used your section to demonstrate the kind of editing that needs to happen throughout the article now that the content is present. I copied the opening para beneath as a suggestion of how direct I think we should be. Use it as a guide or copy it in as you see fit. I removed sentences that were commentary or not directly relevant to early word learning. I also reorganized to put things in chronological order. Can you put an internal link to an article on syllables in Wiki? I would include nouns in the list of typical words in the 50 word stage (they are the dominant form). I would put actual words that you are referring to in italics. Two of the sentences "children's understanding of names..." and "At 18 to 24 months..." need citations.

Most children produce their first words after they turn one.[5][6] Infants' first words are normally used in reference to things that are of importance to them, such as objects, people, and relevant actions. Infants' first words are mostly single-syllabic or repeated single syllables (put Hewlitt and Howard in as a ref here). Typically at age 12 to 26 months, children are able to produce about 50 words. At this stage, words such as no, gone, and allgone" constitute a child's vocabulary.[6] Children's understanding of names for objects and people usually preceeds their understanding of words that describe actions and relationships. At 18 to 24 months, children are able to combine two words; three to four-word production appear later when children are able to produce two-word utterances. The number words one and two are the first number words that children learn.[7]

Furthermore, I would include the role of phonological development, babbling, and the vocabulary spurt as subsections within the Early Word Learning section. This will help us manage the table of contents. These sections (as all in the article) will also need the kind of copyediting that I modelled above. Perhaps use different layers of headings as Alindsay9 did.

The phonological dev't section starts off well. The first two sentences are clear. I don't think the phrase "phonetic construct" is meaningful in sentence 3. Say what you mean directly. I thought this section was about production of sounds, but there are a number of vague references to speech perception here. There is an fairly strong article on phonological development already on Wiki. Please link to it and provide only the key information that is necessary so people will be able to understand this article.

Regarding babbling, as you know I have a soft spot in my heart for this topic. I would not use the word gibberish. While Pinker may use it, babbling researchers describe the phenomenon as jargon babbling. In fact, I would use a different source than Pinker for this section altogether. Try any of the research papers by de Boysson Bardies, Oller or Locke or use a textbook. Be clear that when Pinker is discussing deaf children's babbling he means their vocal babbling, but you should really cite Oller's work here. Parents do not babble nor do Deaf parents babble with their hands, even if they are using sign language. Babies babble and babies whose parents sign babble with their hands. There are sources you could cite for that too (Petitto & Marentette, Meier). Deaf parents may use "motherese" but that is quite different and not your topic. Be clear about why babbling is important, how precisely does it help children acquire words? The last sentence isn't linked to any particular point so it seems to float there. Either say more or say less by removing it.

The vocabulary spurt section seems to repeat the info in the Early word learning lead. I thought you were going to specifically address the increased rate of word learning that happens specifically at 18 months. There is much research about this specific age range. Also Eheiberg has a whole section below on vocab dev't in school children.

Marentette (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Establishing Meaning Alindsay9, good work here with a thorny theoretical issue. My suggestions for copyediting follow; they build on what I wrote for Julietbee above.

Consider removing the heading right at the beginning of the section. I think your first section does an adequate job of establishing the issue. We need to be consistent about referencing: in or out of sentence? We all need to do the same thing! Is it fair to portray the emergentist coalition approach as one that tries to tie the other disparate theories together. Also how do we be sure to portray this theoretical debate so that Mr. Stradivarius is convinced it is neutral?

Is it possible to condense the theories of constraints to a bullet list with a phrase description for each? This might be more acceptable (since less wordy) to a general reader looking for an overview to this topic. If someone is all excited about this, perhaps each needs its own wiki page?

Do you think overextensions should be mentioned in either Early Word Learning or in Pragmatic sections? I see that Asia44 did mention them in Pragmatics. Is that enough that this bit can be removed?

Mutual exclusivity (possibly the best reason not to pursue my list idea above) also could mention that bilingual children have been shown to use the ME within each language (though clearly not across). This might be a good addition since it is culturally important (most of the world's children are bilingual).

Consider putting the criticisms of constraints up with the lead section so that the content is together followed by (hopefully?) a list. One of my biggest concerns about this article right now is that it is too detailed and too broken up. I can see that under Domain general and social pragmatic (below) it may be advisable to have one heading but hopefully fewer than are currently present.

Under domain general, link to fast mapping and connectionism, (already on wiki). I would consider trying to get all the info under one heading, to keep it visually simple.

Under social pragmatic. Again when you do the copyediting remove the duplication caused by extra headings. I don't think every paragraph needs it own heading. I would define pragmatic or link to Pragmatics so people can have context.

I wonder if your summary would be more useful at the top (given how people read an encyclopedia article) so they can know right way which, if any, of the subsections they care about. Marentette (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Pragmatic Development Asia44, Lots of great content here. Thanks for your research. Much of what needs to happen now is copyediting. Every sentence needs to be a sentence with a subject and a predicate! I would start by removing the first heading ( as I've mentioned above, each paragraph does not needs its own heading and I am worried that it breaks up the text too much). In general try to consolidate and have only a few headings in this section. Please begin by informing readers what pragmatics means with respect to vocabulary development.

What does "star information" mean? Why should people curious about vocab dev't care about speech acts? Ditto cognitive development. These are critial things for you to understand to write this article effectively. Consider, however, what the reader needs to know. If this information is important enough to include, you need to be clear about why and how it is relevant to the topic.

Under pragmatic skills (a heading I think you can remove) the object section might benefit from an indication of the age of the children you are talking about. Also this section might need additional citing - perhaps once for each strategy? I suspect you have many possible references for overextension.

Spacial is spelled spatial! I've fixed it but thought you should know.

I don't understand the role of the inference section. Inference is key to children's thinking, but what does it tell us about how children use words?

I wonder if politeness deserves its own section. There may be great wiki articles already about register and polite forms of language to which you could link.

Fathers and siblings section. This is a great idea. Be sure to link explicitly to the content of word learning as that is the focus on this article. You might retitle this something more inclusive. Differential roles of family members. It is really that mothers and fathers have specific roles (it may well be) or is it the difference between primary and supportive caregivers. Recall that we are talking about children at least 18 months but really preschoolers. Be sure that any difference you cite relate to this age group, not the wee babies (where primary caregivers may be more likely to have particular access/roles). At any rate, what is currently there at least requires you to acknowledge that most research is conducted with mother/child pairs.

then - first this then that//than - comparative. I fixed it but want you to know.

Pragmatic Directions. I think this section is very important but too vague at the moment. You have to explain what you mean to a completely naive reader. What does "related by inclusion" mean. What does repaired mean? Marentette (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

School-Age Children Eheiberg, good work here. The writing is lovely and the information clear. I focus mostly on how to copyedit to further improve clarity. Consider also how to link to Alindsay9's work above.

Do we need a one sentence transition getting these word-learners into school and discussing the role of school in the new process of dev't? Perhaps sentence 3 is a better first sentence? "many claim" do you need to cite something where that claim is made? I would consider taking the first paragraphs and reordering the sentences to fit a developmental phase. As is, it seems to hop around from age to age.

I have to think about how we can link the very useful description of the role of different context in word learning with other parts of the article. I'll get back to you on that. You and Alindsay9 may be able to come up with your own ideas. I think you two are getting at the same info from two different perspectives.

Memory - can you provide a one sentence description of the dispute? I wonder if this part really need subsections. As a naive reader, is it possible to summarize this in even fewer sentences and have just the section, no parts? I would put the reading chunk before the memory chunk. In fact I would consider introducing reading and conversation as key means of vocab dev't in the school age children in the opening paragraph of this section. Then you could discuss each and make the context section in reference to them. The memory part can come in at the end. Consider it at any rate. Marentette (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the revision suggestions Paula, I incorporated all but the mutual exclusivity suggestion into my section. I have yet to find any information about billingual children and the mutual exclusivity constraint, but I will keep looking. I also revised my citations so that they are out of the sentence now. Alindsay9 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I was considering including a part on teaching voabulary, as most of the literature on school-age vocabulary development comes from resources directed at teaching.  This is why I put reading at the end, as this usually ties in to literacy development as well, but I am not sure how necessary this is in this article.

Alanna, the last article I presented in class might have some references for bilingualism and mutual exclusivity, if you are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eheiberg (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)