> But it seems that the definition of negative evidence is telling the child "no" and then correcting them. The video goes through several examples from peer-r

> But it seems that the definition of negative evidence is telling the child "no" and then correcting them. The video goes through several examples from peer-reviewed studies, and several of them involve "repeating back the correct sentence". In fact while the video did mention the fact that saying "no" just makes communication harder, the majority of the video is explaining why giving corrected examples of grammar doesn't necessarily help. The video talks about your approach specifically here[1]. > I know of no other way for a young child to learn than to hear it spoken more. That is true, but repeating back a specific sentence is not necessarily the most effective manner of helping them acquire an aspect of grammar. Language acquisition isn't a conscious process, so focusing on a mistake doesn't help -- and repeating a sentence with correct grammar is only a single example of that particular grammar concept, which the child still needs to hear many more times before they actually acquire. It should also be noted that one of the studies (looking at what sentences parents would correct) found that "there is not even a shred of evidence that approval and disapproval are contingent on syntactic correctness". So it's quite likely that you aren't actually correcting grammatical mistakes -- most of the time you're probably correcting sentences with incorrect meaning and pronunciation. I mean, it probably doesn't hurt or anything, it's just probably not as helpful as you might think it is. [1]: https://youtu.be/a7Un06tDOn0?t=272 https://youtu.be/a7Un06tDOn0?t=272