User talk:RemoLing/sandbox

Dear Remo: Hi, Remo! I think you are already doing great jobs, and Kevan made great comments on the article. Here are the things that I would like to add. 1) Leading paragraph: I agree with Kevan's point about this part. There are a few big words in the paragraph, which might make it difficult for those who are not doing linguistics to grasp the idea. 2) Argument: You already point out the following. I totally agree with your point, and I think some relevant citations are also needed. “Occasionally, aspects of universal grammar seem describable in terms of general details regarding cognition. For example, if a predisposition to categorize events and objects as different classes of things is part of human cognition, and directly results in nouns and verbs showing up in all languages, then it could be assumed that rather than this aspect of universal grammar being specific to language, it is more generally a part of human cognition.” Not only in this part, the rest of this section seems to just list information including a lot of big words. 3) History & Chomsky’s theory: You said it would be better to use UG IN ALL ITERATIONS. In that case, it is reasonable to retain “Chomsky’s theory” as a separate section. However, I think the part is more relevant to Argument, so making a subsection or a clear connection to the part would be better. I am also kind of wondering how much independent Argument, History, and Chomsky’s theory are… 4) Presence of creole languages: Honestly, I could not understand why this is dealt with in a separate section. 5) Criticism: The author took just a huge chunk of Tomasello's saying. That part needs to be paraphrased… 6) See also: All the things listed might be related to UG, but I think other things such as Biolinguistics, modularity, mind-related stuff, and the like might be more adequate for further readings. Ninackjeong (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)