Talk:Language attrition

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reneekohler, Bcaison, Ortizj8, Elizabeth Fryar, ReneeSKohler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rdow. Peer reviewers: Simpson Hannah, Zerocarey, MerodioJJ, Tedrickja.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lmoorekroll.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]

This article is pretty tough going for a layperson. It is fine to tell what happens at one particular conference, if that does indeed give us a good indication of the current state of academic opinion, but only after the concept of language attrition is first explained in language an average high school student could understand. I don't think that criterion should apply to absolutely everything on wikipedia, but language attrition is something that many people are likely to have already observed without realising it. This means they should generally be able to grasp the idea if it is explained well enough. Ireneshusband 19:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the many great things about wikipedia is that just about anyone can edit pages, make suggestions, help here and there, and son on. Attrition is an area I am much interested in, and because of that, the text seems quite accessible to me. Sometimes, it takes someone outside the box to say, hey, this ain't no good. I appreciate that. I've made a few, only a few, changes for now. But please, help out. I'd appreciate that, too. Again, thanks for the heads up on what was wrong with it. Ta.DDD DDD 03:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject, but I have made changes to (hopefully) improve readability. Only got to about halfway because I got lost in the minutiae. --81.132.1.136 21:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) DB

Citation and style

Right now, the article reads like a research paper, rather than an encyclopedic entry, right down to the "Summary" ending. Also, there are very few in-line citations, so the reader can follow up on statements made. Tagged as such, hopefully someone more familiar with the topic can do a touch of housework. Nice article, though! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Two years later, it's still written like an essay. I can't understand why the template was removed. _R_ (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Added templates to "Sum", because the style used there is ridiculous for Wikipedia. --Cornince (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is a dead end. It's written as an essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XsalemX (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation of Language attrition

The article is full of information that is really relevant to the topic of language attrition and for the most part uses clear and understandable language. However, the majority of it also sounds like a research paper/original research. This is evident in the citing of sources in parenthesis rather than footnotes which distracted me as a reader. There is also some missing citations in statements that, at least to me, sound like factual claims. There is also only one citation footnoted in the article and the link works. It also looks to have been paraphrased accordingly and not plagiarized. However, there are only a couple more links available from a long list of sources. While there are a lot of references in the text, it is hard to check the information because one would have to check the source mentioned, find it in the references list and then search for the actual source not linked in the Wikipedia page. Ortizj8 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead Section/Conclusion and Citations

I think that the lead section of this article starts strong; it summarizes the topic’s scope clearly for the casual reader. However, in the later paragraph, it starts to use more jargon and even introduces research?—inappropriate for an introduction. Though some information pertaining to the rest of the article is necessary, and missing thus far, moving this denser information from the last paragraph of the introduction to the body of the article is advised. The conclusion section is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry; some of its general information on the topic ought to be moved up to the introduction as well. As some of you have noted, this article reads far more like a research paper than an encyclopedia entry: it is very reliant upon research, constantly reference specific studies. Greater use of multiple studies or overview studies to support one claim would strengthen the article. The sources are great in number, and most of them come from reputable(-sounding?) journals or books. However, most of the sources are not referenced by note, but cited within the text APA style, and then as a general source on the page. And very few of the sources are reachable online, so it is hard to confirm that the author did not plagiarize.Elizabeth Fryar (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC) In Language attrition I intend to improve upon the topic of L1 attrition. L1 attrition is a little better covered in the article than L2 attrition, but needs major reorganization. The different aspects of the topic are oddly spread across the article, and should be organized under appropriate headings. I also want to improve upon the cited sources for L1 attrition. Most of the sources are individual studies cited directly in the article; using collect studies, and citing them by footnote, would give the information presented more weight, and make the article more encyclopedic. Overview studies I've founded include First Language Attrition. (2013). by Schmid, Monika S. and Köpke, Barbara, and Schmid's overview article of the same year, Schmid, M. S. (2013). First language attrition. Linguistic Approaches To Bilingualism.Elizabeth Fryar (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

L2 Attrition present in article

Throughout the article, there is information spread out about Second Language (L2) attrition. While some of this information is appropriate, as it relates to L1 attrition, there is another Wikipedia article that focuses on L2 attrition. Some of this information can be moved to that article instead of staying in this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortizj8 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

At second language attrition. In the alternate, the articles could be merged, or this one split into "first language attrition" and (general) "language attrition". 178.164.139.37 (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Age Effects section

The Age of Arrival subsection could be better integrated into the rest of the Age Effects section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishabecker (talk • contribs) 12:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"In both cases, attriters performed worse than non-attriters"

In section Lexical attrition there is the (sourced) sentence about some experiments:

In both cases, attriters performed worse than non-attriters.

This seems a tautology or at least begging the question. If the study was used to judge language attrition, then by definition those who perform "worse" are more prone to attrition than those who perform "better".

Perhaps this means something else - was the attrition already identified by other studies? - but this is not clear from the text. Can we clarify it? I cannot easily get the sources. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)