Jump to content

User:The Philosopher John Locke/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionary Psychology of Language Article Draft

[edit]

Current State: Evolutionary Psychology of Language

Main editing points: Content: There is a significant amount lacking on this page, and it will be helpful to flesh out the missing information. Style: The writing is not always unbiased and is sometimes misleading. Much of editing this article will be changing the style to be more encyclopedic in nature. References: While much of the leading theories on the evolutionary psychology of language are found in publications in research journals (and so are not particularly appropriate as sources for Wikipedia), there still exists a need to find and cite new sources which highlight the major components of the evolutionary psychology of language, and discuss its potential implications (without extrapolating beyond the reasonable). Relevance: There was a lot of talk on the "Talk" page about merging this article with another larger one, as it seems that this page started by copying some of these sections from those articles into a new page, which doesn't exactly make it relevant or needed. Differentiating this article from others is therefore another aspect to consider when going about doing these edits.

I have copied the original article which I am editing below.

Current Edited Version:

Evolutionary psychology of language

[edit]

The evolutionary psychology of language is the study of the evolutionary history of language as a psychological faculty within the discipline of evolutionary psychology. Analysis of how language has evolved is informed by research in developmental biology, evolutionary biology, and cognitive neuroscience.

There are many competing theories about how language evolved, and why language seems to be so different in humans from other organisms. Part of the argument stems from the belief that human language could have been developed as the result of an adaptation, an exaptation, or an evolutionary "by-product" of other processes.

Genetics also influences and contributes to the study of the evolution of language. It has been noted by researchers in the field that mutations in the master regulatory gene Forkhead box protein-2 (FOXP2) are implicated in heritable speech disorders.[1] Expressed in the brain, the lungs, and the gut, FOXP2 helps to regulate several hundred other genes, and has been shown to influence the development and utilization of linguistic abilities both in humans and other animals.[2] Additionally, mutated versions of the gene known as Sushi repeat containing protein X-linked-2 (SRPX2), which is regulated by FOXP2, have also been shown to be involved in speech disorders and seizures, and as such, SRPX2 has been hypothesized to play a role in linguistic ability as well.[3]

The ability of humans to acquire language at a young age, including the ability to develop grammar and syntax is a notable feature of how humans deviate from other species. Humans' abilities to passively acquire any language to which they are exposed at a young age is indicative of a commonality between these languages, and suggests that humans have a predisposition for learning language (see Universal grammar).

Prevailing theories of language evolution

[edit]

In the debate surrounding the evolutionary psychology of language, three main arguments are presented: the belief that language is an evolutionary adaptation, which evolved like any other physiological process; the belief that language is a by-product of another adaptation or adaptations whose primary functions are to regulate other processes; and the belief that language is an exaptation, and so harnesses existing processes and structures which had different original purposes, but were later re-purposed for creating language. Evidence for these theories is often garnered through the process of studying both language and physiology in humans and animals, with a particular eye for what differences may exist between different entities. While the nuances between aspects of these competing theories can be subtle, each has profound implications for the evolution of language, which in turn, informs how other processes evolved as well.

Adaptation

[edit]

Psychologists Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom argue that language as a mental faculty has many commonalities with the complex organs of the body; this suggests that, like these organs, language has evolved as an adaptation, since this is the only known mechanism by which such complex organs can develop. Examining the natures of these mechanisms, the faculty of language, and the ability to learn language can provide a comparative resource between the psychological evolved traits and the physical evolved traits.[4] Pinker, in line with Noam Chomsky, a linguist and cognitive scientist, argues that because children can learn any human language (including those with largely different grammatical constructions) at a young age without any explicit instruction, the idea that the abilities necessary for language are highly innate is quite credible. But while Chomsky originally proposed that the creation of the framework for language was a result of other processes evolving over time, Pinker and Bloom argue that the organic nature of language strongly suggests that the language faculty is adaptational in origin.[5]

By-product/Spandrel

[edit]

Noam Chomsky spearheaded the debate on the faculty of language as a cognitive by-product, or spandrel. As a linguist, rather than an evolutionary biologist, his theoretical emphasis was on the infinite capacity of speech and speaking: there are a fixed number of words, but there is an infinite combination of the words.[6] This property is known as recursion, and has been by proposed by Chomsky and others to be the main defining characteristic which separates human language from animal language.[7] His analysis of human language considers that the ability of our cognition to perceive infinite possibilities, or create infinite possibilities, helped give way to the extreme complexity found in our language.[6] Both Chomsky and Gould argue that the complexity of the brain is in itself an adaptation, and language arises from such complexities.[6] On the issue of whether language is best seen as having evolved as an adaptation or as a by product, evolutionary biologist W. Tecumseh Fitch, following Stephen J. Gould, argues that it is unwarranted to assume that every aspect of language is an adaptation, or that language as a whole is an adaptation.[8] He criticizes some strands of evolutionary psychology for suggesting a pan-adaptationist view of evolution, and dismisses Pinker and Bloom's question of whether "Language has evolved as an adaptation" as being misleading.[8] He argues instead that from a biological viewpoint that the evolutionary origin of language is best conceptualized as being the probable result of a convergence of many separate adaptations into a complex system. A similar argument is made by Terrence Deacon, who in The Symbolic Species argues that the different features of language have co-evolved with the evolution of the mind and that the ability to use symbolic communication is integrated in all other cognitive processes.[9]

Exaptation

[edit]

Exaptations, like adaptations, are fitness-enhancing characteristics, but, according to Stephen Jay Gould, their purposes were appropriated from other processes as the species evolved. This can be for one of two reasons: either the trait’s original function was no longer necessary to the organism, so the trait took on a new purpose; or, a trait that arose without a given purpose later became important to that species.[10] Typically, exaptations have a specific shape and design which becomes the space for a new function.[10] The foundation of this argument comes from the low-lying position of the larynx in humans.[11] However, baboons, which are Old World monkeys (diverging from humans roughly 25 million years ago), have been shown to produce all the vowel sounds that humans can, despite a higher position of the their larynx.[12] They do not, however, have humans' linguistic abilities, which suggests that biological similarity is not enough to explain language evolution. Additionally, other mammals have similar positioning of the larynx compared to humans, but indeed, no other species has shown linguistic abilities on the order of humans. This leads exaptationists to believe that language resulted from structures and processes that evolved for other purposes, but were later harnessed in the production of language.[11]

Evolution and distinction of human languages

[edit]

Among the nearly 7000 languages used across the world, there are aspects of many languages which are highly specific, and others that are more universal in nature.[13] On one hand, the syntactic structures and phonological components of human languages are similar enough that at an early age, humans will acquire the ability to speak and understand these languages passively, and can acquire more than one language at once, even if they have oppositely configured parameters. In contrast, differing syntactic structures and phonological components between languages help to highlight certain aspects of different languages as being unique to that language or a group of languages. Additionally, research on phonological processing has helped to map physiological features and linguistic processes together, a connection first formally described by MIT researcher Kenneth Stevens in his publications on what he called the "Quantal Nature of Speech."[14] Identifying the universal components of human language and differentiating these from language specific phenomena is a constantly evolving goal in the field of linguistics, which advances with comparative studies.

Dialects of the Basque language categorized by location.
Dialects of the Basque language. Light-shaded regions represent those dialects no longer spoken.

Some of this variations between languages are thought to have come about through cultural differentiation. There are four factors that are thought to contribute to why there are language varies so significantly between cultures. These are the founder effect, drift, hybridization and adaptation. In past millennia, with vast amounts of unexplored land available, different tribes began to form and to claim new territory, and the process of becoming a unique culture often coincided with changes in their natively spoken languages. Differences in the human populations arose as certain groups would become isolated from others, and through their different experiences, novel aspects of their languages would result.[15] In particular, the Basque language Euskara has long been noted to be much different than those languages of the surrounding cultures. The explanations for this have varied, but genetic analysis of the Basque people has shown distinct mutations indicating that they are descendants of a group of Neolithic farmers, who, after mixing with the local tribes, became isolated for millennia.[16] During this time, the civilization which would become the Basque people progressed independently from surrounding cultures, leading to many unique aspects of their modern linguistic and cultural composition.

Hybridization is also hypothesized to play a large role in the language evolution. This involved one group coming in contact with another, where they introduced new words and sounds to each other, a process which eventually lead to the formation of a new language. The region of Alsace-Lorraine, situated directly in between Germany and France, is a prime example of a region where multiple languages converged to form new dialects, which combined aspects of each of their parent languages. Hybrids like these would sometimes take on new features of their own, and result in the formation of distinguishable, new languages (see mixed languages).

A regional map of the Alsace-Lorraine region, connecting location with dialect spoken.
Distribution of dialects in Alsace-Lorraine by region, prior to the expansion of standard French in the 20th century.

Adaptation has also been proposed to play a role in the evolution of language differentiation, for both the environment and the technology were constantly changing over past millennia, causing groups to adapt their language to these changing circumstances.[15] This can be understood most clearly when examining the advancement of technology in the context of discovering new objects and physical phenomena. Because new words and phrases were needed to describe these novel findings, the vocabulary and phrase lexicons of each language expanded to meet these advancements, often in different ways, further contributing to the dynamic evolution of different languages.

Quentin Atkinson, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, has theorized that language may have originated in Africa. He proposed that due to the fact that African languages have the greatest variation of speech sounds of any group of languages, these sounds could have served as the root of other languages that exist across the world today.[17]

Genes and language

[edit]

Research has shown that “genetic constraints” on language evolution could have caused a “specialized” and “species-specific” language module.[18] It is through this module that there are many specified “domain-specific linguistic properties,” such as syntax and agreement.[18] Adaptationists believe that language genes “co-evolved with human language itself for the purpose of communication.”[18] This view suggests that the genes that are involved with language would only have co-evolved in a very stable linguist environment. This shows that language could not have evolved in a rapidly changing environment because this would not have been stable enough for natural selection. Without natural selection, the genes would not have co-evolved with the ability for language, but instead, could have come from “cultural conventions.”[18] The adaptationist belief that genes co-evolved with language also suggests that there are no “arbitrary properties of language.” This is because they would have co-evolved with language through natural selection.[18]

The Baldwin effect provides a possible explanation for how language characteristics that are learned over time could become processes encoded in genetics. He suggested, like Darwin did, that organisms that can adapt a trait faster have a “selective advantage” over other organisms (see natural selection).[18] As generations pass, less environmental stimuli is needed for organisms of the species to develop that trait. Eventually no environmental stimuli are needed and it is at this point that the trait has become “genetically encoded.”[18] This could mean that because language was a tremendous advantage to evolving species, it became more and more genetically encoded over time, which has led to what Noam Chomsky called Universal grammar in human beings.

FOXP2 gene

[edit]
Structure of the FOXP2 protein. Based on PyMOL rendering of Protein Data Bank (PDB) 2ao9.

The genetic and cognitive components of language have long been under speculation; only recently have linguists been able to point out a gene that may help explain how language works.[19] Evolutionary psychologists hold that the FOXP2 gene may well be associated with the evolution of human language. In the 1980s, psycholinguist Myrna Gopnik identified a dominant gene that causes language impairment in the KE family of Britain. Some members of the KE family has a mutation in the FOXP2 gene which caused them to suffer from a speech and language disorder. Individuals with a mutation in their FOXP2 gene have since been noted to have trouble mastering complex sentences, and have shown signs of developmental verbal dyspraxia.[19] It has been argued that the FOXP2 gene is "the language gene" which allows for humans to have the ability to form sentences and communicate on a higher level, however, more recent understanding of the genetic regulation behind language has shown FOXP2 to only be a part of the picture, orchestrating a symphony of gene expression which regulates multiple neural processes, particularly in the stages of development and early life.

The FOXP2 gene is highly conserved over evolutionary history, but the differences in the amino acid sequence between the human version of the gene and that of other species have been postulated to contribute to the differences in cognitive and linguistic ability.[20] The unique human version of this gene seems to have first appeared between 100 and 200 thousand years ago, and it is now all but universal in humans.[20] Attempts to tie language and genetic evolution together have involved examining the history of human evolution, and proposing that the relatively recent appearance of language in humans may have coincided with the novel mutations in FOXP2 and other genes, perhaps helping to explain the origins of human communication. Evidence for such a saltational leap in linguistic ability is supported by the relative lack of linguistic ability in non-human primates; however, enough evidence does not exist to explicitly draw this conclusion.

SRPX2 gene

[edit]

The SRPX2 gene has made a nascent entry into the genes associated with linguistic disorders. It has been characterized in individuals with speech dyspraxia and rolandic epileptic seizures who were found to have mutations on this gene.[3] It is known to be regulated by FOXP2, and to contribute to the formation of new neural connections (see synaptogenesis) and new blood vessel formation (see angiogenesis) in the brain.[21] Despite being found to exist in mice, birds, and non-human primates, the role that the SRPX2 plays in linguistic ability is not highly studied, and as such, the complete function of SRPX2 as it relates to language is currently unknown.[21]

Communication in other animals

[edit]

Research indicates that nonhuman animals also possess aspects of linguistic ability.[22] Among the most notable species to exhibit aspects of advanced or complex language abilities are dolphins, songbirds, and non-human primates (e.g. apes, chimps, bonobos). Dolphins, while being relatively difficult to study due to their aquatic environments and the nature of their vocalizations, have exhibited relatively sophisticated communicative ability.[citation needed] Songbirds have been noted to have a complexity in their vocalizations not seen in most other animals, and the close relationships of many neural structures and processes between birds and humans makes songbirds prominent animal models for studying a variety of neurological and linguistic phenomena.[23] Studies of vocal learning in songbirds, coupled with analyses of song structure and the distribution of song elements, have identified a number of linguistic features which correlate with these neural processes, and as such, the manipulation of such elements in songbirds is of interest inform certain aspects of human language.[24] Non-human primates such as chimps and apes show advanced cognitive abilities, but their linguistic skills seem to be severely limited when compared to humans.[25]

Comparative studies of the sensory-motor system reveal that communicative ability is not unique to humans; in particular, nonhuman primates have been shown to possess the ability to discriminate between two different spoken languages.[26] Anatomical features of humans which differ from other animals, particularly the descended larynx, have been proposed to partially contribute to the unique linguistic abilities of humans; however, further research revealed that several other mammals have a descended larynx, indicating that this must not be the only biological feature needed for speech production.[26] Because nonhuman primates do not have a descended larynx, they lack vocal imitative capacity, which is why studies involving these primates often involve nonverbal means of communication, such as sign language.[26] Vocal imitation is not solely unique to humans, however.[26] Songbirds have been shown to acquire species-specific songs by imitating the calls of other birds.[27][28]

Specific Cases

[edit]

Koko and Nim Chimpsky

[edit]

Alex the parrot is shown identifying blocks based on their color, shape, and number.

Koko and Nim Chimpsky (named after Noam Chomsky) are two apes that have successfully learned to use sign language, but not to the extent that humans can. Nim is a chimpanzee that was taken in by a family in the 1970s and was raised as if he were a human child. Nim was able to master 150 signs, which are limited mainly to individual items or tasks. Koko was a gorilla that was taken in by a Berkeley student. She was able to master 600 signs for general communication.[26]

Alex the Parrot

[edit]

The African grey parrot known as Alex was noted to have cognitive abilities beyond those normally observed in other birds. Though parrots are known vocal learners, Alex's abilities to vocalize went much further; he was said to understand many questions asked in English and was able to respond to some of these questions in sentences or phrases of English.[29] He was able to identify numbers up to six, and could select objects precisely based on their number, shape, or color.[30] His vocabulary was said to be roughly 100 words, and he was even said to have proposed an existential question about himself upon seeing his reflection in a mirror.[31][32] According to his trainer, Irene Pepperberg, his cognitive abilities exceeded that of any other bird she trained, and approached that of a young human child in some respects.[33] Though it was never formally proposed that Alex had 'language' like humans do, his linguistic and cognitive abilities were certainly more developed than was ever expected for a bird, and while there have never been any other birds like him, his accomplishments are well noted in the literature.

[edit]
  • A map detailing the migratory patterns and timelines of humans moving from Africa to other continents.
    A map detailing the migratory patterns and timelines of humans moving from Africa to other continents.
  • Proto-Indo-European languages, c. 500 AD
    Proto-Indo-European languages, c. 500 AD
  • Regions of the brains of songbirds, humans, chickens, and monkeys proposed to serve similar functions.
    Regions of the brains of songbirds, humans, chickens, and monkeys proposed to serve similar functions.

(See homologous and analogous structures in biological evolution.)

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Vargha-Khadem, F; Watkins, K; Alcock, K; Fletcher, P; Passingham, R (31 January 1995). "Praxic and nonverbal cognitive deficits in a large family with a genetically transmitted speech and language disorder". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92 (3): 930–933. ISSN 0027-8424.
  2. ^ "FOXP2 forkhead box P2 [Homo sapiens (human)] - Gene - NCBI". www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. National Center For Biotechnology Information. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  3. ^ a b "SRPX2 sushi repeat containing protein, X-linked 2 [Homo sapiens (human)] - Gene - NCBI". www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  4. ^ Richardson,, R. (November 1996). "The prospects for an evolutionary psychology: Human language and human reasoning". Minds and Machines. 6 (4). Springer: 541–557. doi:10.1007/BF00389658. Retrieved 2 January 2014.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  5. ^ Workman, Lance and Will Reader (2004) Evolutionary psychology: an introduction. Cambridge University Press p. 259.
  6. ^ a b c Chomsky, N., Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger, New York. (1986).
  7. ^ Hauser, Marc D.; Chomsky, Noam; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (2002-11-22). "The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?". Science. 298 (5598): 1569–1579. doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 12446899.
  8. ^ a b Fitch, W. T. (2011). The Evolution of Language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p. 15. ISBN 052167736X.
  9. ^ Deacon, T. The Symbolic Species. 1997.
  10. ^ a b Botha, Rudolf P (2001). "How much of language, if any, came about in the same sort of way as the brooding chamber in snails?". Language & Communication. 21 (3): 225–243. doi:10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00002-7.
  11. ^ a b Fitch, T., "Evolutionary Developmental Biology and Human Language Evolution: Constraints on Adaptation." "Evolutionary Biology". 39:4. pp. 613-30.
  12. ^ Boë, Louis-Jean; Berthommier, Frédéric; Legou, Thierry; Captier, Guillaume; Kemp, Caralyn; Sawallis, Thomas R.; Becker, Yannick; Rey, Arnaud; Fagot, Joël (2017-01-11). "Evidence of a Vocalic Proto-System in the Baboon (Papio papio) Suggests Pre-Hominin Speech Precursors". PLOS ONE. 12 (1): e0169321. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169321. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5226677. PMID 28076426.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  13. ^ Fitch, W. Tecumseh (12 February 2011). "Unity and diversity in human language". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 366 (1563): 376–388. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0223. ISSN 0962-8436. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  14. ^ Johnson, Keith; Babel, Molly (2010-01-01). "On the perceptual basis of distinctive features: Evidence from the perception of fricatives by Dutch and English speakers". Journal of Phonetics. Phonetic Bases of Distinctive Features. 38 (1): 127–136. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2009.11.001.
  15. ^ a b Levinson, SC.; Gray, RD. (March 2012). "Tools from evolutionary biology shed new light on the diversification of languages". Trends Cogn Sci. 16 (3): 167–73. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.007. PMID 22336727.
  16. ^ "Ancient DNA cracks puzzle of Basque origins". BBC News. BBC News. 7 September 2015.
  17. ^ Bower, Bruce (2011). "Darwin's tongues: Languages, like genes, can tell evolutionary tales". Science News. 180 (11): 22–25. doi:10.1002/scin.5591801128. ISSN 0036-8423.
  18. ^ a b c d e f g Chater, N.; Florencia, R.; Christiansen, M. H. "Restrictions on biological adaptation in language evolution". PNAS. 106 (4): 1015–1020. doi:10.1073/pnas.0807191106.
  19. ^ a b Fisher, S.E. & Scharff, C. (2009). "FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language." Cell Press pp.166-177.
  20. ^ a b Christianse, M. H. & Kirby, S. (2004). Language Evolution. Oxford University Press. pp. 215-216.
  21. ^ a b "OMIM Entry - * 300642 - SUSHI REPEAT-CONTAINING PROTEIN, X-LINKED, 2; SRPX2". omim.org. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  22. ^ Hedeager, Ulla. "Is Language Unique to the Human Species?" (PDF). Retrieved 31 March 2017.
  23. ^ Brainard, Michael S.; Doupe, Allison J. (8 July 2013). "Translating Birdsong: Songbirds as a model for basic and applied medical research". Annual review of neuroscience. 36: 489–517. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-152826. ISSN 0147-006X.
  24. ^ Samuels, Bridget D. (2015-01-01). "Can a bird brain do phonology?". Frontiers in Psychology. 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01082. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 4516810. PMID 26284006.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  25. ^ Scott-Phillips, Thomas C. (February 2015). "Nonhuman Communication, Pragmatics, and the Origins of Language" (PDF). Current Anthropology. 56 (1): 56–80.
  26. ^ a b c d e Hauser, M. D., et al. (2002). Science 298. pp. 1569-1579.
  27. ^ Haesler S, Wada K, Nshdejan A, et al. (March 2004). "FoxP2 expression in avian vocal learners and non-learners". J. Neurosci. 24 (13): 3164–75. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4369-03.2004. PMID 15056696.
  28. ^ Haesler S, Rochefort C, Georgi B, Licznerski P, Osten P, Scharff C (December 2007). "Incomplete and inaccurate vocal imitation after knockdown of FoxP2 in songbird basal ganglia nucleus Area X". PLoS Biol. 5 (12): e321. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050321. PMC 2100148. PMID 18052609.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  29. ^ M., Wise, Steven (2002-01-01). Drawing the line : science and the case for animal rights. Perseus Books. ISBN 0738203408. OCLC 49767948.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. ^ Smith, Dinitia (1999-10-09). "A Thinking Bird or Just Another Birdbrain?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  31. ^ Carey, Benedict (2007-09-10). "Alex, a Parrot Who Had a Way With Words, Dies". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  32. ^ Polyphony., Tbilisi Ivane Javakhishvili State University, Institute of Classical, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, International Research Centre of Traditional (2006-01-01). Who asked the first question? : the origins of human choral singing, intelligence, language and speech. Logos. ISBN 9994031813. OCLC 938910972.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. ^ Chandler, David (2007-09-11). "Farewell to a famous parrot". Nature News. doi:10.1038/news070910-4.
[edit]

Biolinguistics Wikipedia Article Critique

[edit]

You'll spend some time thinking critically about Wikipedia articles. You'll evaluate a Wikipedia article, and leave suggestions for improving it on the article's Talk page. 

  • Complete the "Evaluating Articles and Sources" training & the "Editing Medical Topics" training (linked below). (Completed)
  • Read the Wikipedia article for Biolinguistics or one other article related to the course. 
  • While you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these): 
    • Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

Nothing in the "Developments section is cited, yet this section seeks to define the field and the major implications of its work. This would need to be fixed to be considered credible.

    • Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Some grammatical errors here and there were somewhat distracting, but the more noticeable errors include the lack of completeness of any section of the article, and the paucity of cited sources.

    • Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The last sentence in the introduction would seem to be a point of view, which would either need a citation, or would need to be removed. The citation of only one published work on the origins of linguistics, no matter how good, is insufficient to adequately represent the field. Additionally, the critiques section only includes the point of view of one person, which is not nearly adequate to assess and critique the complexities of the entire field.

    • Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The information is sometimes not cited, and much of the information is from primary research articles, which are not as favorable a type of source as general summaries and overviews of the field. No doubt that the lack of consensus in the field might require relying more on primary research articles, but then multiple points of view should be represented, and more thoroughly discussed.

    • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Some points of view are overrepresented insofar as that there are few other sources that are given in contrast to those papers. There simply are not enough points of view in the "Developments" section, the "Critiques" section, or the "Hypothesis" section.

    • Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

The links for the four citations which have links work fine, but the paragraph in the "Hypothesis" section is mostly re-phrased content from the paper that is cited. The voice of the paragraph changes from talking about the cited paper to postulating the implications of a current hypothesis, much of which is not cited.

    • Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The "People in Biolinguistics" section is not complete, and mentions only certain contributors to the field. This section could be expanded and updated. Additionally, some sources are from more than ten years ago, but this is probably not a primary concern considering the quality of works cited and their contributions to the field of biolinguistics (with additional consideration for the relatively few sources on the topic).

  • Create a section in your sandbox space where you leave your notes. This will help you get familiar with editing on Wikipedia. 

(Done)

  • Choose at least 1 questions relevant to one of the articles you're evaluating. Leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes.

Please see the Biolinguistics Talk Page: [[[Talk:Biolinguistics|[1]]]]

Notes from Training

[edit]

bold

bold

bold

Paragraph: This helps you set the style of the text. For example, a header, or plain paragraph text. You can also use it to offset block quotes.

A : Highlight your text, then click here to format it with bold, italics, etc. The "More" options allows you to underline, add code snippets, and change language keyboards.

Links: The chain button allows you to link your text. Highlight the word, and push the button. VisualEditor will automatically suggest related Wikipedia articles for that word or phrase. This is a great way to connect your article to more Wikipedia content. You only have to link important words once, usually during the first time they appear. If you want to link to pages outside of Wikipedia (for an "external links" section, for example) click on the "External link" tab.

Cite: The citation tool in VisualEditor helps format your citations. You can simply paste a DOI or URL, and the VisualEditor will try to sort out all of the fields you need. Be sure to review it, however, and apply missing fields manually (if you know them). You can also add books, journals, news, and websites manually. That opens up a quick guide for inputting your citations. Finally, you can click the "re-use" tab if you've already added a source and just want to cite it again.

Bullets: To add bullet points or a numbered list, click here.

Insert: This tab lets you add media, images, or tables.

Ω The final tab allows you to add special characters, such as those found in non-English words, scientific notation, and a handful of language extensions.

References Section for Future Use

[edit]

This is where references will be cited in the future.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Philosopher_John_Locke/sandbox&oldid=840179356"