Talk:Psycholinguistics/Language and Arithmetic

Introduction

You write this well, with an obvious thesis of why both language and math should be studied together, but when making your specific points, particularly in reference to the studies cited the information was not presented as clearly as it could have been. Try using more straight forward sentences and easier language to start people off; otherwise they may be startled by the technical terms and skip on to another article. For example: the sentence “and training on number facts generalized with new facts that were comparable to those that were learned” was principally difficult to understand.

Brain Systems and Cognitive Resources

Language

The description of the brain areas involved is clean and informative, but there is confusion as to where your citations refer. In some areas the relevant fact precedes the citation and in others it seems to follow it. I’m sure this will be cleared up once they’re all hyperlinked though.

Arithmetic

The first paragraph was really well done! It had a clear explanation with two resources to back up the same theory. The second paragraph again, with a few word errors, was well done. You presented both sides of the research and came to a conclusion in a valid manner. This could be my error (maybe only I’m not getting it), but unfortunately, I didn’t quite understand your third paragraph; it seemed to introduce new information suddenly, hastily, and with little explanation. I would suggest trying to word it in a way that makes it feel more connected to the previous information given. Finally, a little fiddling had to be done with some of the wording to get your point across, but other than that the information seemed complete.

Communal Cognitive Resources

At first glance, I would say that you clearly know what you want to say, and have the information to do so, but are having difficulty getting your point across. This section is having the same difficulty as the introduction; the wording is too technical and needs some fleshing out for those who are naïve to the subject. For example, what are ‘approximations’? The first two paragraphs could easily be crunched into one as well, because a lot of it is just repetition of the study parameters. Either that or I’m confused enough about this that I think two studies are one. So if that’s the case I would suggest clarification for differentiation between the two studies. In general, this section is hard to read; if there is any way possible to make it easier for people, go for it. Also, it was hard to keep track of all the brain areas, so it might be useful to remind people of what a particular brain area does when comparing it to another one later.

The Number Sense

The Triple Code Model

I can understand why you put the explanation of the model first, as it seemed important for the following text, but the entire time I was reading this section I was just wondering what the number sense and numerosity were; so maybe make a tiny explanation of these at some point previous, without giving away the meat of the next section. Otherwise, it was good.

The Number Sense and Numerosity

I never saw an explicit explanation of what number sense was; is it the same as numerosity? Make sure to define all your terms.

Development

Numerosity

There was a bit of a problem here with using technical terms again, but otherwise it was well put together as a support to the early development of numerosity.

The Relationship between Language and Arithmetic

Social and Cultural Contexts

The first paragraph was fine, but the second paragraph has no reference to mathematical ability. I can understand that you may have wanted to demonstrate that upbringing has a huge impact on language and therefore mathematical ability, but the case with Genie works only as an introduction into this idea, you need to solidify it with evidence for such an impact on arithmetic as well. The third paragraph was great!

Contemporary Research

These were some great studies, but there were very few. I know it’s difficult to find research in this area, but maybe try to find a few others to reinforce this research or demonstrate novel ideas. The only other thing I could suggest would be to add a conclusion at the end of the whole sha-bang! Otherwise it would end on a flat note

Note*

I’ve emailed some suggested grammatical and language flow corrections for your pleasure to review and decide whether to use or not. Highlights are areas of change, and anything in quotations is a suggested or added word.

Kfraser 21:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)