1

I'm writing a sentence and I cannot think of a good word to fit in.

...However, input hypothesis, despite its popularity and great contribution that it made, did not go without criticism. Noticing hypothesis and comprehensible output hypothesis were the main [the word] of it.

My first thought was to use critic, but it seems critic is used to describe a person. Can I use it here, too? If not, what word can I use there without being awkward?!

I should say that I can't use rival here either, I really hope I could, because these two theories propose that input hypothesis is necessary but not sufficient.

  • 1
    The word critic doesn't really seem to make sense there whether you mean a person or an inanimate entity. Frankly, your second sentence doesn't really make sense at all. It looks like "Noticing hypothesis and comprehensible output hypothesis" is the subject of the sentence, so I'm not sure where critic fits in the sentence. Do you mean that those were the main criticisms of it? – stangdon Apr 7 '17 at 18:12
  • I'd like to say that these hypotheses put forward some neglected aspects of input hypotheses without rejecting it completely. Can I use criticisms as you mentioned? As in "Noticing hypothesis and comprehensible output hypothesis were the main criticisms of it" since I think they pointed out some criticism rather being the criticism themselves. – Yuri Apr 7 '17 at 18:19
  • I've no idea whether input hypothesis, noticing hypothesis, and comprehensible output hypothesis are recognised terms in some technical context, but none of it reads like normal English to me. And if they really are valid "jargon", I'd at least expect each reference to be preceded by the definite article. – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica Apr 7 '17 at 18:19
  • @FumbleFingers let's replace the hypotheses with article 1, article 2, and article 3 (in newspapers), so the sentence would read: "However, article 1, despite its popularity and great contribution that it made, did not go without criticism. article 2 and article 3 were the main [the word] of it. Can I use critics to describe the articles? – Yuri Apr 7 '17 at 18:24
  • 1
    @Yuri, we normally use the preposition of after criticisms. books.google.com/ngrams/… – JavaLatte Apr 8 '17 at 9:41
1

A critic is a person who gives critiques or reviews. If a critic says something negative, that "something negative" isn't called a critic. You cannot use "critics" to describe the articles.

Noticing hypothesis and comprehensible output hypothesis were the main [the word] of it.

Criticism can be used the way you want, as in "X is the main criticism of it", but will sound wierd since you already used that word in an earlier sentence.

A shortcoming is a concise word to describe a neglected aspect. You can also use flaw or deficiency.

Noticing hypothesis and comprehensible output hypothesis were the main { shortcomings | flaws | deficiencies } of it.

Given "The latter hypotheses (Noticing H & Comprehesible Output H) are not part of the former (input H). They were proposed later by other researchers as a reaction to the shortcomings they found in the first hypothesis" in your comments ...

I don't think a single word can express this in English.

I don't really think you can do better than "improved hypothesis" here, if it is accepted as improved. If it is not accepted as improved, I would consider a term such as "evolved hypothesis" or "further-developed hypothesis."

| improve this answer | |
  • The latter hypotheses (Noticing H & Comprehesible Output H) are not part of the former (input H). They were proposed later by other researchers as a reaction to the shortcomings they found in the first hypothesis. I'm saying this because I think the last sentence of yours implies that the latter hypotheses are the flaws of the first hypothesis. In other words, I think you take that N.H and C.O.H are subject to criticism while it's not the case. It's the other way around. I.H is being criticised by N.H and C.O.H. – Yuri Apr 7 '17 at 19:19
  • See edits to my answer. – LawrenceC Apr 7 '17 at 19:30
  • Yea, thank you. I think i can use further developed as an adjective phrase and go with indicating the shortcomings of it, further-develoed hypotheses x and y were the main improved versions of I.H does it sound good? – Yuri Apr 7 '17 at 19:46
  • Sounds good to this non-scientific native speaker. – LawrenceC Apr 7 '17 at 19:51
  • You've been of great help :) + 1 – Yuri Apr 7 '17 at 19:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.