Talk:Prosodic bootstrapping

Review

• Intro
  • The intro looks good, except for this sentence: "Anyhow, children have to construct word representations from the speech that they hear". I would either remove or change it.
• Phonological Phrase
  • Maybe provide a link to wikipedia:Prosodic unit
  • Acquiring Lexion section is very clear, good.
  • The Aquiring Syntax section is confusing though. It sounds like the argument is that function words and morphemes indicate syntactic boundaries - but that sounds more like syntax or morphology than prosody. Mention that function words are marked by the prosody at the beginning of the paragraph rather than at the end, otherwise i'm left wondering what the discussion of morphemes and function words has to do with prosodic bootstrapping until the end.
• Rhythm
  • "Because speech Languages are grouped into different categories based on their rhythm, primarily stress based, rhythm based, and mora based categories" -- is there some other article you could link to for an explanation of this? I don't expect you to discuss it in full in your article (since that would be off-topic) but I'm not sure what rythm/mora/stress based langages are. In Phonology we analyzed English using stress, syllables, and morae, so I don't know what this means exactly.
  • The table is great. Makes the experiment very clear, shows clearly how head-final/initial languages differ prosodically.
• Language modeling
  • I'm guessing this section is unfinished? I need more detail to understand what's being said here, it sounds a little vague.
• General comments:
  • Is there any evidence against prosodic bootstrapping?
  • Some odd grammar here and there, just read it over again.
  • Overall very good so far. JordanAMSmith (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

• Needs an intro or the first two paragraphs can be the intro (before the table of contents).
• The "acquiring syntax” section is a little confusing. It’s hard at first to work out how phonology can influence syntax until the end.

“The question of the head direction parameter has also been tested with French babies listening to Turkish sentences[2], where babies listened to modified "nonsense" sentences that were neither French nor Turkish, but only differed in the fact that the Turkish based sentences were head final and French based sentenced were head initial. This was done in order to eliminate any non-prosodic interference, thus babies would only be able to differentiate sentences based on the head direction.”

• The sentence is somewhat confusing and long. Maybe clarify the Turkish-French language and sentence distinction as well as the experiment itself.
• There are some punctuation errors here and there. Otherwise, it’s fine. Knowlin4 (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

Good introduction. The layout is nicely done and you definitely have some good information here. Some of the citations need cleaned up a bit, and you have some variation going on (some citations are before a period, and some after), but that's an easy fix. Your second paragraph in your introduction is a bit confusing, but I think it is just that the language usage is a little wonky, so I'm having a difficult time following the sentence. The language usage in general in this article could use some cleaning up. "The acquiring of a lexicon is no small feat..." <- while that is true, it doesn't seem like most Wiki pages use language like this in general. I liked your use of a table; it's always nice to see information laid out like that rather than a wall of text. It would also be nice to see a section on controversies or counters to prosodic bootstrapping, but overall, good draft. Jtwelsh (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

The writing is well done and your organization is good. Weird note, I think that the period goes before the citation like this.

In your intro section you have the sentence "Anyhow, children have to construct word representations from the speech that they hear." you should change anyhow to 'regardless.' Where you talk about the main support for the theory in the intro should be moved to the body of the article. Your dice and red ice example is good but you should make sure to clarify that children know the difference between these words when d ice is taken out of red ice and heard separately. You might want to clarify your section on acquiring the syntax, the connection isn't quite clear at the moment. Is there any evidence against the theory? Rebeccacm (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Review

- The intro paragraph is pretty good and gives a nice general overview of prosodic bootstrapping. I would say just “auditory aspects” instead of specifying pitch, tempo, rhythm, amplitude because you don’t go into detail about these things in your article. The second paragraph could be placed into its own section (not in the introduction) and should be elaborated upon.

- The divisions of the article do not match with your lead-in paragraph. After reading your introduction, I would expect there to be sections entitled, “Prosodic boundary cues,” “Head Direction,” and “Distribution regularity.” So, be sure to reflect on how you structure the article so that the introduction sets up the reader to logically follow the rest of the article.

- “Phonological Phrase” – I would make this plural: Phrases

- Under “Phonological Phrases,” the sentence “The first is that children hear words in isolation: if a new piece goes between two words that are known, the new piece must be a new word” should have a citation.

- In Phonological Phrase→Acquiring a lexicon→first paragraph, I would use the phrase ‘units within the speech stream’ instead of ‘fragments within the speech stream’ for clarity.

- The second paragraph under ‘acquiring a lexicon’ is written very well and the example clearly illustrates the point you’re trying to make. Nice job!

- First paragraph under “Acquiring syntax” needs a citation and the sentence is not finished.

- Perhaps you could move the last paragraph under “Acquiring syntax” to the first or second paragraph under that section, because it provides some important general concepts to understand about syntax. Then, the “Another tool…” paragraph can follow, because it is more specific.

- In “age division”, first paragraph, say “word final vowel” instead of “word last vowel”

- The second sentence of “Linguistic Rhythm” (Because speech languages….) is a fragment, and should be reworded to make a clear statement.

- In the third paragraph of “Linguistic Rhythm,” maybe you could say “babies listened ‘nonsense’ sentences modified from French and Turkish. The only difference was that…” – this would make the paragraph clearer. As the paragraph is right now, it is unclear to someone who is unfamiliar with the experiment. Also, be sure to cite the experiment at the end of the paragraph.

- Good job using bold and parentheses with the specific examples throughout your article to indicate where stress is, or where the prosodic boundaries lie. Great idea to put in a table to illustrate your comments. It breaks up the text and acts as a nice visual element. We will have to put a table or some kind of visuals in our article.

- Elaborate more on Language modeling – what is it? Why is it significant?

- Something to add might be arguments against prosodic bootstrapping – how do syntactic bootstrapping and semantic bootstrapping play into prosodic bootstrapping?

-There are some minor grammatical errors throughout – be sure to proofread the sections written by your partner as well as your own. LiaK (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

Organization: The overall organization of the article is clear and the article is well organized.
Logic: The logic of the article is good as it is easy to follow your idea and you have provided relevant examples to support your idea.
Sentences: The sentences of the article are neutral and formal. However, in the first paragraph of the introduction, you used ‘anyhow’ in the last sentence, I’m not sure if this word is formal enough.
Completeness of the discussion: I think the overall discussion is complete. However, you may want to elaborate more on the studies of the language modeling part so that readers could understand the models thoroughly.
Any content missing: I think you have provided sufficient content on this topic. One minor thing that I found was that the referencing format was not consistent, as some references used the full first name and some just used the first initial of the first name of the authors. Also, some of the year of publication of the references were missing. Ngkawing (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)