User talk:Shaalattar

Welcome!
Hello, Shaalattar, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

a. What is the level of importance assigned to the topic? What is the class-level of the article, and what reason(s) did you find for that “grade?” The third topic I have chosen is lexical semantics. The article lexical semantics has been rated as B-class. The rating has been such because the article is considered to be mostly complete and without major problems, although the article needs more work to make it better.

b. Is there a focus for the comments, or are there several? What are the issues that the comments address? There are quite several comments about the article. The comments and edits helped the article develop and reach its current class rating. The first comment on the article is regarding the incorrect definition of lexical semantics. A different user, however, replies to the comment and cites a source that reaffirms the initial definition of "lexical semantics" saying, "The article below tells us that lexical semantics is the study of word meaning and its representation in the lexicon. Perhaps this reflects a more implementation oriented view of computational linguistics. Another issue pointed out is on the need to expand the article. A user added to the discussion, an annotated bibliography with a list of materials they would be using to improve the article. Another user also added a copy-edit of the article to rid any grammatical mistakes. Further, a comment on the citations was added, correcting duplicated citations.

c. Select two of the issues, and summarize the discussions. How does the discussion relate to what you have learned, or feel you know about the issue? Is there resolution? How does the language on the actual page relate to the talk about it? One of the issues that I picked is on the definition of lexical semantics. I assume that the original article says that lexical semantics is the study of the meaning of the word, because the first commenter points out the error in definition. The last commenter gives a suggestion that becomes the issue's resolution: that the definition be changed to "study of how semantic organization of the lexicon interacts with syntax," instead. Presently, the definition on the articles says, "Lexical semantics looks at how the meaning of the lexical units correlates with the structure of the language or syntax."

The next issue that I choose to talk about is a portion of the original article which states, "Lexical units are the words so lexical semantics involves the meaning of each individual word. Lexical semantics is one area of linguistics to which we can continually add throughout our lives, as we are always learning new words and their meanings whereas we can only learn the rules of our native language during the critical period when we are young." I highlight the last line as a user points out that this statement can raise arguments about the matter. According to the commenter, critical periods are not limited to young age as "we are forever reassessing our conception of our native language." For the commenter, there is no such thing as critical periods limited to young age because we still learn the language as we age. In response, the statement is taken down, and the present article no longer contains the debatable line.

d. How do the article and discussion relate to our treatment of the topic—in our reading and in our discussion? Did we address it at all? If so, did we do so in ways consistent with the understanding in the article or the talk page? You may find agreement with some of the discussants and disagreement with others.

I went over the dates that all the comments were made and I learned that the interaction is not as active as I had thought. The gaps range from 3-7 years in between, making development relatively slow - slower than how we would have treated the topic. There is little argument in the talk page, although we would have to consider the large time gaps between comments that make an active and dynamic discussion less likely. Most of the comments were in agreement with each other as well. In the discussion on the definition, for example, the five users share the same views on the error on the first definition published. This makes the recommendation unanimous and easier to apply.

e. What is your sense of the discussion? In other words, what do you conclude is most convincing or explanatory? Why? (i.e., what reasoning led you to draw the conclusion you have drawn?)

The discussion is perhaps not as interactive as others. Most of the time, the discussions only involve two views and without much argument. Instead, the article is edited in accordance to the suggestions, without further discussion. As to the issues, the most interactive was on the discussion on the definition of the term. The most convincing comment was a discussant's suggestion on the definition of lexical semantics, because he/she explained the initial post and where it could have gone wrong. Discussant Trondtr (2006) comments on the issue: "The intro states that LS is a theory of denotation. That is, at the best, a small part of the truth (as shown by the Morning Star paradox) (He thinks the Morning Star is (not) the Evening Star, but the names denote the same entity). I agree with 171.64... above, who expects lexical semantics to tell what the words mean. We study words, not things (denotata). One relevant theoretician is Anna Wierzbicka, another tradition (when it is at its best) can be found within lexicography." Instead of just saying the article's definition of lexical semantics was wrong, like what the other discussants did, user Trondtr expands the comment with an analogy. I would not say that his/her explanation is the best anyone could ever give, but his/her is better than the others', at least.

The rest of the discussions are on copy editing the article. These suggestions are only composed of grammatical and organizational suggestions.