THEORIES OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

1. Plato’s Problem
A fundamental insight of philosophical rationalism is that human creativity crucially
depends on an innate system of concept generation and combination. According to Chomsky,
children display “ordinary” creativity—appropriate and innovative use of complexes of
concepts—from virtually their first words. With language, they bring to bear thousands of rich
and articulate concepts when they play, invent, and speak to and understand each other. They seem
to know much more than they have been taught—or even could be taught. Such knowledge,
therefore, must be innate in some sense. To say it is innate, however, is not to say that the child is
conscious of it or even that it exists, fully formed, at birth. It is only to say that it is produced by
the child’s system of concept generation and combination, in accordance with the system’s courses
of biological and physical development, upon their exposure to certain kinds of environmental
input.

It has frequently been observed that children acquire both concepts and language with
amazing facility and speed, despite the paucity or even absence of meaningful evidence and
instruction in their early years. The inference to the conclusion that much of what they acquire
must be innate is known as the argument from the “poverty of the stimulus.” Specifying precisely
what children acquire and how they acquire it are aspects of what Chomsky called in the
“fundamental problem” of linguistics. In later work he referred to this as “Plato’s Problem,”
a reference to Plato’s attempt to explain how it is possible for an uneducated child to
solve geometrical problems with appropriate prompting but without any specific training or
background in mathematics. However, Chomsky held that solving Plato’s problem is a task for
natural science, specifically cognitive science and linguistics.

2. Locke’s Tabula Rasa

Most people familiar with Locke’s philosophy have heard of his concept of tabula rasa,
or the blank slate. To state it briefly and in a simplified manner, this is the idea that all knowledge
comes from outside ourselves through sensory experience rather than through innate knowledge
that we have at birth. This naturally carried over to language theory with Locke rejecting the idea
that there was an innate logic behind language.

Obviously these theories don’t touch too much on the practical, everyday level of language
learning. They’re far less detailed and more philosophical than the modern scientific theories
we’re used to. But they have important implications. The emphasis in language learning must lie
on what we already know, using our innate abilities to come to an understanding of the
particularities of a specific language. If Locke is right, then we must focus our attention
on sensory input, gaining as much external input as possible.
3. Burrhus Frederic Skinner (Skinner’s Theory of
Behaviorism)

In the middle of the 20th century, B.F. Skinner took Locke’s ideas of sensory input and ran
with them. According to behaviorism, a radical variant of which was put forward by Skinner, all
behavior is no more than a response to external stimuli and there’s no innate programming
within a human being to learn a language at birth.

What differentiates Skinner from those who came before him is the level of detail he went
into when connecting behaviorism and language learning. In his concept of what he called
“operant conditioning,” language learning grew out of a process of reinforcement &
punishment whereby individuals are conditioned into saying the right thing.

Skinner is regarded as the father of Operant Conditioning, but his work was based
on Thorndike’s (1898) law of effect. According to this principle, behavior that is followed by
pleasant consequences is likely to be repeated, and behavior followed by unpleasant consequences
is less likely to be repeated.

Skinner introduced a new term into the Law of Effect - Reinforcement. Behavior which is
reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e., strengthened); behavior which is not reinforced tends to die
out-or be extinguished (i.e., weakened).
Skinner identified three types of responses, or operant, that can follow behavior.
• Neutral operants: responses from the environment that neither increase nor decrease the
probability of a behavior being repeated.
• Reinforcers: Responses from the environment that increase the probability of a behavior being
repeated. Reinforcers can be either positive or negative.
• Punishers: Responses from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a behavior being
repeated. Punishment weakens behavior.
 We can all think of examples of how our own behavior has been affected by reinforcers
and punishers. As a child you probably tried out a number of behaviors and learned from their
consequences.
For example, if when you were younger you tried smoking at school, and the chief
consequence was that you got in with the crowd you always wanted to hang out with, you would
have been positively reinforced (i.e., rewarded) and would be likely to repeat the behavior.
If, however, the main consequence was that you were caught, caned, suspended from
school and your parents became involved you would most certainly have been punished, and you
would consequently be much less likely to smoke now
For instance, giving praise to promote good behavior. While punishment can decrease the
behavior so that the learner won’t to do it again. For instance, if the child gets extra chores or no
recess.

To put it another way, Skinner described a mechanism for language learning that hadn’t
existed before on the tabula rasa side of the language acquisition debate. What this means for us
as language learners, should his theory be even partially true, is that a process of conditioning
must be achieved for us to succeed. When we say the right thing, we must be rewarded. When we
say something incorrectly, that too must be made clear. In other words, we need feedback to
succeed as language learners and language educators.
4. Stephen Krashen
Stephen Krashen
(University of Southern
California) is an expert in
the field of linguistics,
specializing in theories of
language acquisition and
development. Much of his
recent research has involved
the study of non-English
and bilingual language
acquisition. Since 1980, he
has published well over 100
books and articles and has
been invited to deliver over
300 lectures at universities
throughout the United States
and Canada.

The 5 hypotheses of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis.

Adults have two ways of developing L2 competence:

1. Via acquisition, that is, picking up a language naturally, more or less like children do
their L1, by using language for communication. This is a subconscious process and the
resulting acquired competence is also subconscious.
2. Via language learning, which is a conscious process and results in formal knowledge of
the language.
For Krashen, the two knowledge systems are separate.”Acquired” knowledge is what explains
communicative competence. Knowledge gained through “learning” can’t be internalised and
thus serves only the very minor role of acting as a monitor of the acquired system, checking
the correctness of utterances against the formal knowledge stored therein.

2. The Natural Order Hypothesis

The rules of language are acquired in a predictable way, some rules coming early and others late.
The order is not determined solely by formal simplicity, and it is independent of the order in
which rules are taught in language classes.

3. The Monitor Hypothesis

The learned system has only one, limited, function: to act as a Monitor. Further, the Monitor
cannot be used unless three conditions are met:
1. Enough time. “In order to think about and use conscious rules effectively, a second
language performer needs to have sufficient time” (Krashen, 1982:12).
2. Focused on form “The performer must also be focused on form, or thinking about
correctness” (Krashen, 1982: 12).
3. Knowledge of the rule.
3. The Monitor Hypothesis

The learned system has only one, limited, function: to act as a

Monitor. Further, the Monitor cannot be used unless three conditions are
met:

1. Enough time. “In order to think about and use conscious rules
effectively, a second language performer needs to have sufficient time”
(Krashen, 1982:12).
2. Focused on form “The performer must also be focused on form, or
thinking about correctness” (Krashen, 1982: 12).
3. Knowledge of the rule.

4. The Input Hypothesis

Second languages are acquired by understanding language that contains structure “a bit beyond
our current level of competence (i + 1) by receiving “comprehensible input”. “When the input
is understood and there is enough of it, i + 1 will be provided automatically. Production ability
emerges. It is not taught directly” (Krashen, 1982: 21-22).

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The Affective Filter is “that part of the internal processing system that subconsciously screens
incoming language based on … the learner’s motives, needs, attitudes, and emotional states”
(Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982: 46). If the affective Filter is high, (because of lack of
motivation, or dislike of the L2 culture, or feelings of inadequacy, for example) input is
prevented from passing through and hence there is no acquisition. The Affective Filter is
responsible for individual variation in SLA (it is not something children use) and explains why
some learners never acquire full competence.

5. John Schumann(Schumann's Acculturation

Theory)

Some learners make rapid progress in learning a second

language, while others with the same initial ability and
language instruction make little progress in the same amount of
time. Schumann hypothesized that this difference could be
accounted for by characteristics of the social and psychological
distance learners placed between themselves and the language
they were learning. Schumann identified eight characteristics
of social distance and four characteristics of psychological
distance.
 According to him: “second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and
the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target-language group will control the degree
to which he acquires the second language.’’ From the perspective of Schumann second
language acquisition is truly affected by the degree of social and psychological distance
between the learner and the target-language culture. Another important point is the social
distance which depends to the learner as a member of a social group that is in contact with
another social group whose members speak a different language. Psychological distance
consequences from a number of diverse affective factors that concern the learner as an
individual, such as language shock, culture shock, culture stress. If the social and psychological
distance is great at that time acculturation is impeded and the learner does not progress beyond
the early stages of language acquisition. The students target language will likely an
interlanguage which is characterized by simplifications and reductions occurring in the
learner’s interlanguage which lead to fossilization when the learner’s interlanguage system
does not steps forward in the direction of the target language.

Characteristics of Social Distance:

Characteristics Explanation

Social Dominance Patterns The native language learners' reference

group can be superior, inferior, or equal in
terms of politics, culture, technology, or
economics. If they view their group as
superior, they may not learn the second
language.
Integration Strategies Assimilative learners give up native
language values and lifestyles. Preservative
learners keep native language values and
lifestyles. Adaptive learners become
bicultural and switch depending on the
group.
Enclosure When groups share social facilities,
enclosure is low. This supports language
learning.
Intended Length of Residency Length of time a learner plans to stay in the
country and the permanency of residency in
the country impact motivation to learn a
new language.
Cohesiveness Strong intragroup contact in the native
language community with few contacts
outside the community impacts second
language learning.
Size The size of the native language community
may impact L2 learning.
Cultural Congruence The similarity and harmony between the
cultures impact second language learning.
Attitudes The feelings of the reference groups toward
each other impact learning.

Characteristics of Psychological Distance:

Characteristics Explanation

Language Shock Feeling silly about trying to learn the

language equates to less likely to learn.
Culture Shock Being anxious or disoriented in the culture
equates to less likely to learn.
Motivation Level of motivation affects learning.
Ego-permeability The extent to which second language
learners view their first language as fixed
and rigid will impact their learning of the
second language.

6. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar

In the 1960s, linguists became interested in a new theory about grammar, or the laws of
language. The theory was popularized by an American linguist named Noam Chomsky who often
focused on the effortless language learning of young children. Chomsky didn’t believe that
exposure to a language was enough for a young child to become efficient at understanding and
producing a language. He believed that humans are born with an innate ability to learn languages.
According to Chomsky’s theory, the basic structures of language are already encoded in the human
brain at birth. This “universal grammar theory” suggests that every language has some of the same
laws. Chomsky and other linguists have said that all languages contain similar elements. For
example, globally speaking, language breaks down into similar categories of words: nouns, verbs,
and adjectives, to name three. Another shared characteristic of language is recursion. With rare
exceptions, all languages use structures that repeat themselves, allowing us to expand those
structures almost infinitely.

For example, take the structure of a descriptor. In almost every known language, it’s possible to
repeat descriptors over and over again: “She wore an itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, yellow polka dot
dress.” Strictly speaking, more adjectives could be added to further describe that dress, each
embedded within the existing structure. The recursive property of language allows us to expand the
sentence “She believed Ricky was innocent” almost endlessly: “Lucy believed that Fred and Ethel
knew Ricky had insisted he was innocent.” The recursive property of language is sometimes called
“nesting,” because in almost all languages, sentences can be expanded by placing repeating
structures inside each other.

Chomsky and others have argued that because almost all languages share these characteristics
despite their other variations, we may be born preprogrammed with a universal grammar. If the
basic grammar laws are the same for all languages, a child needs only to follow the particular set
of rules that his peers follow in order to understand and produce their native language. In other
words, his environment determines which language he will use, but he is born with the tools to
learn any language effectively.
7. Constructivism Theory
Constructivism is the response to the behaviorism theory (asiaeuniversity, 2012:106). It means that
the role of constructivism theory is in the opposite of behaviorism. The students’ role is to construct
their own understanding and knowledge of the world through experiencing things and reflecting
on those experiences. It means that the students construct the meaning of certain thing by
assimilating and accommodating through their own experience. It tends to create the active
students. While the constructivist teachers encourage and guide the students in order to assess the
activities which help them to get the understanding. The way the teacher guides the students can
be conducted through questioning them in order it can create the situation in which the students
construct the meaning of thing by themselves. Moreover, the function of questioning is to regard
the students as the expert learners. The other function of constructivism theory is it can create
problem solving, if the students find problem, they can discuss with other friends to get the solution.
That is the point of view about constructivism theory.

Constructivism is the response to the behaviorism theory (asiaeuniversity, 2012:106). It means that
the role of constructivism theory is in the opposite of behaviorism. The students’ role is to construct
their own understanding and knowledge of the world through experiencing things and reflecting
on those experiences. It means that the students construct the meaning of certain thing by
assimilating and accommodating through their own experience. It tends to create the active
students. While the constructivist teachers encourage and guide the students in order to assess the
activities which help them to get the understanding. The way the teacher guides the students can
be conducted through questioning them in order it can create the situation in which the students
construct the meaning of thing by themselves. Moreover, the function of questioning is to regard
the students as the expert learners. The other function of constructivism theory is it can create
problem solving, if the students find problem, they can discuss with other friends to get the solution.
That is the point of view about constructivism theory.

7.1. Jean Piaget (1896-1980) Assimilation and

Accommodation
Piaget is a Swiss psychologist who describes knowledge development from a holistic and
cognitive perspective, emphasizing that there are many channels that are used to construct
understanding e.g reading, listening, exploring, and experiencing (Savery & Duffy,1995).

For Jean Piaget, the development of the human intellectual can be processed through the process
of adaptation and organization. Adaptation is a process of assimilation and accommodation.
According to Cynthia et al (2005) the term assimilation occurs in which learners add new
knowledge into their existing knowledge framework and accommodation occurs when individuals
adjust to new information. Thus, assimilation is the way to relate what has already known and prior
experience while accommodation is to correct the way relating to the new information.
 From his research into children's language and thinking, Jean Piaget based his theory on the idea
that children do not think like adults. Piaget's theory describes the mental structures or “schemas”
of children as they develop from infants to adults. He concluded that through their interactions with
their environment, children actively construct their own understanding of the world. Piaget's theory
purports that children’s language reflects the development of their logical thinking and reasoning
skills in "periods" or stages, with each period having a specific name and age reference.

Sensory-Motor Period

According to Piaget’s theory, children are born with basic “action schemas,” such as sucking and
grasping. He described the sensory-motor period (from birth to 2 years) as the time when children
use action schemas to "assimilate" information about the world. In his book "The Language and
Thought of the Child," Piaget describes two functions of children's language: the "egocentric" and
the "socialized." During the sensory-motor period, children's language is "egocentric": they talk
either for themselves or "for the pleasure of associating anyone who happens to be there with the
activity of the moment."

Pre-Operational Period

Piaget observed that during this period (between the ages of 2 and 7 years), children’s language
makes rapid progress. The development of their mental schemas lets them quickly "accommodate"
new words and situations. From using single words (for example, “milk”), they begin to construct
simple sentences (for example, “mommy go out”). Piaget's theory describes children’s language as
“symbolic,” allowing them to venture beyond the “here and now” and to talk about such things as
the past, the future, people, feelings and events. During this time, children’s language often shows
instances of what Piaget termed “animism” and “egocentrism.”

Animism and Egocentrism

“Animism” refers to young children's tendency to consider everything, including inanimate objects,
to be alive. Since they see things purely from their own perspective, children's language also
reflects their "egocentrism," whereby they attribute phenomena with the same feelings and
intentions as their own. Piaget’s theory also describes “moral realism” as a characteristic of
children’s language development at this stage, since young children tend to focus on the extent of
any damage caused by a person's actions, without taking into account whether that person had good
or bad intentions.

The Operational Period

Piaget’s theory divides this period into two parts: the “period of concrete operations” (7 to 11 years)
and the “period of formal operations” (11 years to adulthood). According to Piaget, children’s
language development at this stage reveals the movement of their thinking from immature to mature
and from illogical to logical. Children's language also reflects their ability to “de-center,” or view
things from a perspective other than their own. It is at this point that children's language starts to
become "socialized," showing characteristics such as questions, answers, criticisms, and
commands.
 7.2. Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) Zone of Proximal
Development

An important aspect of Vygotsky’s theory is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The concept
emphasizes the social aspects of learning by recognizing the role of a ‘teacher’ (in an official or
unofficial capacity) for a learner to realize their full potential. His view was that language arises as
a means of communication between a child and those around them, and that it is the social
interaction that develops children’s learning and language; this place the teacher in a very important
role.

The zone of proximal development refers to the difference between what a learner can do without
help and what he or she can achieve with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.
Thus, the term “proximal” refers to those skills that the learner is “close” to mastering.
The zone of proximal development (ZPD) has been defined as:
"the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem
solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult
guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

Vygotsky believed that when a student is in the zone of proximal development for a particular task,
providing the appropriate assistance will give the student enough of a "boost" to achieve the task.
To assist a person to move through the zone of proximal development, educators are encouraged
to focus on three important components which aid the learning process:
 The presence of someone with knowledge and skills beyond that of the learner (a more
knowledgeable other).
 Social interactions with a skillful tutor that allow the learner to observe and practice their skills.
 Scaffolding, or supportive activities provided by the educator, or more competent peer, to support
the student as he or she is led through the ZPD.

More Knowledgeable Other

The more knowledgeable other (MKO) is somewhat self-explanatory; it refers to someone who has
a better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, with respect to a particular task,
process, or concept. Although the implication is that the MKO is a teacher or an older adult, this is
not necessarily the case. Many times, a child's peers or an adult's children may be the individuals
with more knowledge or experience.

Social Interaction
According to Vygotsky (1978), much important learning by the child occurs through social
interaction with a skillful tutor. The tutor may model behaviors and/or provide verbal instructions
for the child. Vygotsky refers to this as cooperative or collaborative dialogue. The child seeks to
understand the actions or instructions provided by the tutor (often the parent or teacher) then
internalizes the information, using it to guide or regulate their own performance.
 Other Theories
1. Nativization and Denativization Theory
by Roger Andersen
Roger Andersen (1979) proposed the Nativization Model which sought an explanation
on how learners create and reorganize their interlanguage systems verbally interacting with
more proficient speakers. It says that L2 acquisition consists of two general processes:
nativization and denativization. Nativization is done when learners make the input based on
their knowledge that they already possess (L1 knowledge and knowledge of the world). In
denativization, on the other hand, learners adjust their interlanguage system to make them fit
with the input through inferencing strategies. Consequently, Andersen (1990) has recognized
that these two terms are not two separate forces but aspects of the same overall process of
acquisition.

Such instances are evident in the paper “Don’t Put Your Leg in Your
Mouth: Transfer in the Acquisition of Idioms in a Second Language” by
Suzanne Irujo (1986) of Brown University and Boston University. Findings of
the study states that the subjects were able to generalize from the meaning of
the Spanish idiom to its meaning in English, even when the form is slightly
different. When the differences between the two languages are slight, more
transfer from one language to another occurs. When the differences are
great, lesser or little transfer occurs. The findings also support the notion
that advanced learners of L2 whose L1 is related to the L2 can use their
knowledge in L1 to comprehend and produce L2 language. Hence,
nativization is done in this part, where the language learners use their
knowledge of the L1 to be able to comprehend the L2.

Hence, they will take advantage of those similarities and take careful moves on those
which will cause interference to be able to master the target language. From the study of
Irujo (1986), results indicated that positive transfer was being used by the subjects. Hence, it
is also vital to teach the language learners on how to utilize positive transfer and avoid
interference (negative transfer). They must also be given the time and enough opportunity to
practice their L2 in contextualized situations. This would be of great help for them to
produce the language correctly.

Traditional Grammar-Based Teaching

The traditional approach to English language teaching drew from the grammar-
anchored description of language which was itself derived from the customary system of
studying classical languages like Greek and Latin. The assumption within that system that
language is an orderly body of knowledge meant that it was treated as an entity that could be
taught directly through the memorization of phonetic patterns and inflections and the
description of word relationships within sentences.
 The grammar translation method in language teaching yielded to the development in
the allied field of linguistics. Language studies in Canada and the United States formulated a
method of language teaching that stressed the importance of reading as an activity in the
English language classroom. Basic English came to receive attention in the path finding work
of Michael West et al who adopted the primary precept of the selection of vocabulary on the
basis of utility analysis. These are landmark works concerned with the concept of selecting
core language^ a concept that used the principles of selection and appropriacy which underpin
the ESP pedagogical perspective.

Structural Linguistics
The new theory of structural linguistics was concerned with phonological and
grammatical considerations for the purpose of teaching the structure of a language. Phonemes,
49 morphemes and lexis were identified and contrastive analysis of languages was conducted
to discover possible areas of error in language learning. Language Teaching was founded on a
description of language through substitution tables, propositions and notions. The structuralist
theory contributed to the structural syllabus which was formulated from the identification and
definition of basic units of language. Typical sentence types (syntax) word classes such as of
number, gender and time, and structures of words (morphology), became the ingredients of
language syllabuses that were used for teaching English.

The sustained influence of structuralism on language pedagogy was seen later in the
work of Herbert (1965) who believed that the teaching of a selection of typical sentence
patterns and vocabulary would be appropriate for preparing a course in English for learners
whose purpose in learning the language was merely utilitarian. The rigid core feature of 50 the
structuralist theory of language teaching itself proved to be the reason for amendments to that
style of teaching practice, The inadequacy of syntactic description, the weakness in the
classification parameters of words, the dubiousness within the system of allocating meanings
to morphs and the absence of the vital criterion of comprehension of the meaning set within
linguistic text were the main problems with the structuralist theory

Functional-Notional Theories
This marked the humanistic view of language teaching that is a significant feature of
what came to be known as communicative teaching. Van Ek's Threshold Level is an exemplar
of the functional syllabus. The basic assumption for this concept lay in seeing language as an
instrument for conveying meaning in a manner that was suitable for the context of use. A
concentration on grammatical form and the insistence upon teaching the entire spectrum of
grammar had characterized earlier language teaching. Van Ek identified the specific functions
for which language could be used and averred that the language course should be composed
using those functions' that were relevant to specific contextual needs. The functional theory
was expected to apply to all foreign language teaching, not only to any specific language.

Teaching for any language was to proceed through a set of functions such as asking
questions, describing a process and 54 notions such as time, space and locations which are
universal ideas. The earliest theories of language teaching had defined it in the shape of
prescribed grammar. They had been followed by the tenets of behaviorism which saw language
as a set of habits, teaching consisted of describing and memorizing language units.
 The transformational grammar perspective of language teaching broadened the range
to include the semantic features of language and promoted the important idea of "generation'
of language. The idea of "meaning' — semantic analysis — was assimilated into the
Functional-Notional concepts. Non-formal parameters came to be applied for the selection and
formulation of teaching units, which were instead, rationalized through the sieve of "purpose'.
From this consideration emerged the stellar theory of "discourse' which has illumined the field
of language teaching with its contribution to the concept of communicative teaching, since the
1970s.

Bruner (Input or Interactionist Theories)

In contrast to the work of Chomsky, more recent theorists have stressed the importance
of the language input children receive from their care-givers. Language exists for the purpose
of communication and can only be learned in the context of interaction with people who want
to communicate with you. Interactionists such as Jerome Bruner suggest that the language
behaviour of adults when talking to children (known by several names by most easily referred
to as child-directed speech or CDS) is specially adapted to support the acquisition process. This
support is often described to as scaffolding for the child's language learning. Bruner also coined
the term Language Acquisition Support System or LASS in response to Chomsky's LAD.
Colwyn Trevarthen studied the interaction between parents and babies who were too young to
speak. He concluded that the turn-taking structure of conversation is developed through games
and non-verbal communication long before actual words are uttered.

Reporters:
Jayson M. Gore
Hanna Joyce P. Lu-ang
Danica Ivy M. Mayote

References:
Theories of Language Learning
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Noam-Chomsky/Linguistics
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/theory-of-language-
learning/?fbclid=IwAR2vnSLffma7xDFuAXU5IdglIf9keij6KMExWM5h8LZ4GoQtoCFzgQ
I_YL8
https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
https://blogs.glowscotland.org.uk/glowblogs/uodedueportfoliosm/2015/11/05/language-
acquisition-skinner-and-chomsky/
https://www.simplypsychology.org/language.html#:~:text=Skinner%20argued%20that%20ch
ildren%20learn,value%20of%20words%20and%20phrases.
https://edtechbooks.org/language_acquisition/variability_summary_c
http://ayseclassblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/schumanns-theory-about-second-language.html
https://encrypted-
tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSBzBk1ElRpIizTKor6wMubob22r3dj6zESsA&
usqp=CAU
https://applingtesol.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/how-do-people-learn-an-l2-part-3-from-
krashen-to-schmidt/
https://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash-english.html
https://www.sk.com.br/Krashen.jpg
https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/theory/universal.htm
https://mydreamarea.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/constructivism-theory-of-language-teaching-
and-learning/
https://www.healthline.com/health/childrens-health/chomsky-theory#universal-grammar
https://www.theclassroom.com/jean-theory-child-language-development-6587239.html
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-hostos-childdevelopment/chapter/human-language-
development/
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/languages/understanding-language-and-learning/content-
section-7

Other Theories
Irujo, S. (1986). Don’t Put Your Leg in Your Mouth: Transfer in the Acquisition of Idioms in
a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, 287-301.
Ellis, R. (1994). (De)nativisation. Retrieved from
http://unt.unice.fr/uoh/learn_teach_FL/affiche_theorie.php?id_activite=75
http://501sociopsychofoundation.blogspot.com/2016/07/nativization-and-
denativization.html#:~:text=Roger%20Andersen%20(1979)%20proposed%20the,general%20
processes%3A%20nativization%20and%20denativization.
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/173543/8/08_chapter%202.pdf?fbclid=Iw
AR3wG3WnCUdEdiBfdtiFEpJV-vUIgbM-t71UNsyMp2ZWVa0rs7fRmHiUzTk
https://www.montsaye.northants.sch.uk/assets/Uploads/English-Language-Summer-Work-2.pdf