Talk:Vocabulary development

message: Cleanup req'd: Could be an interesting article, however is unfinished and needs wikification. Clym 14:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a start

message: * The definition of Vocabulary Development could be elaborated
* The use and progress of infants' vocabulary should be discussed.  For example, how children may categorize items to fit under a general term, even though it may not mean that (i.e., an animal with four legs and a tail is called a dog, even if it is a cat)
* The role that gesture and babbling may play in developing vocabulary, or the role of pointing to develop vocabulary (i.e., by pointing at an object, an adult may say the name of the object, which could expand the child's vocabulary)
* Citations and generally more research and resources are needed to give the article greater breadth and to provide more recent research (1987 is almost 25 years ago)
* It is unclear if there is a difference between adults' speaking vocabulary and their written/reading vocabulary, as it says that more vocabulary is used in writing, but the average working vocabulary is much smaller
* The article touches on, but provides no useful information about continuing vocabulary development  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eheiberg (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: I've been trying to sort all of the suggestions on the talk page so far into some possible categories so that we can discuss tomorrow who wants to work on what. This is what I was thinking so far, just based on the current comments/sources:
1. Defining vocabulary development/word naming
-identifying factors that might 'set the stage' for this development, ex. eye gaze, helplessness, attachment, innate vs. learning mechanisms, exposure to speech in utero...
2. What is the general developmental sequence for vocabulary?
-first words to develop
-does literature support a 'word spurt?'
-are children typically referential or expressive, and how does this influence later development?
-how is vocab developed at school and across the lifespan?
3. Is vocab development influenced by input/experience?
-does rate of input, type of input, and who talks to the child/when matter?
-what is the role of joint attention?
-what is the role of gesture/pointing?
-what is the role of exposure to literacy/picture books?
-does it matter whether words are learned directly or indirectly?
4. Individual variation
-how does vocab development vary based upon gender?
-how do children with autism, developmental disorders, or ear infections experience vocabulary development? 
-how does vocab development vary across languages?
Please revise the categories or add to help improve them. : )
Alindsay9 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figuring out 'who's doing what' 

message: As discussed earlier, here are some of the components of our revised article:
	
1. How do children learn words?
   a. Early word learning, first words, first 50 words
   b. Vocabulary spurt
2. Forms of words
   a. Babbling, phonological development
3. Vocabulary development
   a. What happens during school age  (children vocabulary development)
[I would consider putting this at the end, in my mind it a nicer chronological narrative, but it is easy enough to wait until the sections are done and then see how you think things fit to make a clear article]
4. How kids sort out meaning
   a. Constraints
   b. Reference
   c. Function (what do kids do with words? Labelling?) [I would not include this here - Paula]
5. Pragmatic
   a. Function (I think it fits better here than under meaning) the question is what do children DO with words, and that is a pragmatic question of pragmatics [Paula]
b. Examples that show that word learning is universal [I think that this is a place that you will be able to find examples in languages other than English]
I hope we all know what we're doing (in terms of the sections). Our lead paragraph should come later after we gather our information and put everything together. 
Julietbee (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised Article Components

message: Below is an outline of my plan for the 'meaning' section of this article. 
=== The question of meaning, or 'the mapping problem' ===
In word learning, 'the mapping problem' refers to the question of how infants attach the forms of language to the things that they experience in the world.  Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Bloom, L., Smith, L. B., Woordward, A. L., Akhtar, N.,…Hollich, G. (2000). Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. There are infinite objects, concepts, and actions in the world that words could be mapped onto . So how does the language learner successfully complete the word mapping process? Several answers to this question have been explored. Some theorists believe that children have built-in constraints that help them to map words onto concepts in the world. Clark, E. V. (2009). Lexical meaning. In E. L. Bavin (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language (pp. 283-300). New York: Cambridge University Press.  Social pragmatic theories propose that caregivers act as experts in order to assist children in the word mapping process . Domain-general views, as well as an emergentist coalition model have also been proposed to account for the way that children map meaning onto words . 
==== Theories of constraints ====
-General overview of theories
===== Mutual Exclusivity (ME) =====
-Here, I will discuss the ways in which the ME bias might influence children's word learning, including the disambiguation effect, the correction effect, the rejection effect, and the restriction effect. Merriman, W. E., & Bowman, L. L. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children’s word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 54(3-4, Serial No. 220). I will also discuss three confliction positions in the literature regarding the ME bias: that children are biased from the start, that children are never biased, and that children acquire the ME bias during early childhood . 
===== Properties and relations =====
-In this section, I will discuss the attention that children pay to properties and relations, and, in particular, to the shape of objects. Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.  
===== Whole Object Assumptions =====
-The literature suggests that children are most likely to apply a label to a whole object, as opposed to a part or property of the whole . 
===== Taxonomic Assumptions =====
-Children assume that labels pick out categories of objects, rather than those objects and the things that are related to them . 
=== Social pragmatic theories ===
-This branch of theories argues that the caregiver's gaze, body language, gesture, and smile might help infants acquire clues from context in order to understand the meaning of a word . While the main emphasis is usually placed on the role of adults in guiding the meaning-making process, some theorists have suggested that the child also plays an important role in this interaction . 
===== Joint Attention =====
-The literature suggests that joint attention is an important mechanism through which children learn to map words-to-world, and vice versa . 
===== Pragmatic Assumptions =====
-Children may adopt some of the same pragmatic assumptions that adults have in order to learn the meaning of words . I will discuss two examples of these assumptions, conventionality and contrast, here .
=== Domain-General Views ===
-This view argues that children do not need principles or constraints in order to successfully develop word-world mappings . Instead, children notice the objects, actions, or events that are most salient in context, and then associate them with the words that are most frequently used in their presence . 
=== Emergentist Coalition Model ===
-Children map novel labels to novel objects using a variety of cues in their environment. Different cues will come to be utilized by infants as they progress along the path of world-learning . 
=== Summary ===
-Here, I will suggest that the field reflects controversial perspectives on how children map meaning onto real world events, objects, and actions.
This looks good, Alindsay.
Julietbee (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning 

message: -Here, I will suggest that the field reflects controversial perspectives on how children map meaning onto real world events, objects, and actions.
This looks good, Alindsay.
Julietbee (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Hello!
I came up with a leading paragragh for our article; it's in my sandbox. Please double check and see if it's o.k. You can also make changes if you want. Hopefully, it'll do for now, and we can make changes after all our components are "well done." Thanks.
Julietbee (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Leading Paragraph

message: I see that Julietbee deep sixed the brain picture. I agree, 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)
thread_title:  Great new content. Next stop: editing. 

message: I have been thinking about an image for this article.
What you do you think of this one: girl reading a picture book, or this one: Lao girls reading? This one is interesting: overhead kids in school. Finally here is a spelling bee pic.
None of these are perfect, but they convey some aspects of the article. I think my choices would be the first early in article and possibly the last in the section about school age children. 
I assume because they came from wikimedia commons they will be fairly easy to use. 
Something to consider.
Paula Marentette (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible pictures 

message: Wow, this article is really shaping up. You have made a lot of progress in a few short days. I see also that this is in the queue for DYK consideration. That is great, Eheiberg.
* my comments re needed changes to the phonology and babbling sections still stand.
* "According to research, however, children are active participants in their own word learning, although caregivers may still play an important role." I am a bit stumped by according to research. Do you mean that all researchers agree that children are active participants?
* "Domain-general views of vocabulary development, also known as connectionist or associative models..." I didn't catch this earlier, but I'm really thinking about it now. It is absolutely the case that domain-general views are associated with connectionist models (to rearrange your words perversely) but I don't think it is fair to say they are interchangeable labels. Connectionist models are a particular framework and someone might hold a domain-general view and not be using a connectionist model. I think the easiest way to fix this is to remove the phrase "also known as..." but if that seems to extreme, I'm sure it can be reworded.
* "Instead, children notice the objects, actions, or events that are most," I think a word got lost in the editing. Most what?? salient?
* "If biases are not present from birth, infants might have to endure lengthy trial and error processes before establishing correct word-world mappings." Isn't it fairly clear from the literature that this does not happen to children? If not, then is this a straw man that the anti-associationists raise, or is there a response to this from the associationist camp? I think the answer is in your next section, right? I think associationists largely embrace the idea that the world supports children's frequency detection abilities because it is inhabited by social being and situations that support children. Is there some way to say that without leaving the domain-general camp dangling? This is a very picky point. I'll reflect more about how important this is.
* "not all cues are utilized by the infant when they begin the world-learning process" do you mean word-learning?
Paula Marentette (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for further revision! 

message: Hi!
If anyone comes across information on vocabulary spurt at age 18 months, in terms of whether or not there is a spurt/ also among various cultures. I'm still searching, but I haven't come across anything yet. Pinker touched on vocabulary spurt at 18 months, but I'm told his article is not that relevant to this topic. If anyone finds some info in research articles or books, specific page numbers will be very helpful at this moment. Thanks!
Julietbee (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Juliet! Try this one! It's a primary source, but you can probably get some information from their literature review, and maybe take a look at some of their references. Hope it helps!
Ganger, J., & Brent, M. R. (2004). Reexamining the vocabulary spurt. Developmental Psychology, 40(4), 621-632. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.621
Alindsay9 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Sorry, that was my fault. The citation bot took ages to run, so it overwrote the latest changes when it finally finished. I've put those changes back in, and now that the bot has been run once it shouldn't happen again. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabulary Spurt

message: I didn't make notes in my edits, so I'm just placing them here instead.  I did a bit of copy-editing on the entire article - spell check, adding/removing commas, periods, etc., minor changes in tense and adding links to other wikipedia articles. Eheiberg (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Editing 

message: I think my biggest suggestion is that the lead for this lengthy article is quite short. I think there might need to be more information explicitly linking the contents of the article to the code words: form/meaning/use that are used in the lead.
*I shrunk the TOC again to make it a bit briefer, I think it is detailed enough with 2 levels showing and it doesn't leave too much out.
* "There are 40 phonemic categories in each language, and infants acquire words based on these phonemic units." This is true for English,but languages vary widely from 12 phonemes to well over 100 in some African languages. Please consider why this point is relevant to word learning and modify it to make the sentence general or eliminate altogether. 
*Phono dev. This section makes great connections between phonology and early word learning. I have one question about the phrase "seen articulations". Does this mean the mouth movements they observe their caregivers making while talking? It might need a bit more explanation to be clear.
*good update on the vocab spurt. This reflects the literature which shows some kids do, and most don't spurt.
*I think this is ready to go for GA. This is a substantive contribution to Wikipedia and I am pleased with the work you have done.
Paula Marentette (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to second Paula's view on the lead being too short. I would say that you should expand it to four paragraphs - one for each of the top-level sections. You should try and cover all the major points in the article in the lead, as it is meant to be a summary of the entire article. If you have a little time, it might be a good idea to read the manual of style on lead sections to get a sense for what is expected. I'll make some comments about its readiness for GA later on today when I have a spare moment to review it in more detail. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Mr. Stradivarius. Thank you for taking the time to make these comments. We'll focus further on the clarity and in particular on finding non-English links to these concepts. This is the kind of content-level feedback we need to make progress. Paula Marentette (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready for GA submission 

message: This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course.  As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.
If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article.  Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work.  If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further.  If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.
Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
* 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
* 1 - A few minutes of work needed
* 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
* 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
* 4 - More than an hour of work needed
Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is definitely a great improvement. I tagged some weasel words that should be clarified . Marokwitz (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact of recent student edits

message: The article strictly talks about spoken languages, without a single mention of whether signers learn the same way. Some sentences downright deny the fact that language competence can develop without hearing: "Studies related to vocabulary development show that children's language competence depends upon their ability to hear sounds during infancy." Some work needs to be done in order for this article to encompass both linguistics modalities (oral and visual-gestural). Additionally, there should be a section dedicated to vocabulary development in children learning to sign, with a focus on the similarities/differences to their oral language peers. A possible up-to-date source could be pp. 169-203 of the book Language, Cognition and the Brain. Right now I'm busy with other things, so others are free to implement the changes mentioned above. I might come back a few days later and try editing the article myself if no one else already started on it.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and added a section on it. Criticism is welcome.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of sign language vocabulary development