Date/Day Topics Sharers Facilitators Process In-

charge
Feb 11 – behaviorist theory Jay and Imee and Neila and
Thurs acculturation model and nativization model Iravyl Joshua Rejan
accommodation theory cognitive theory Princess
and Joyce
Kristine
Feb 15 – discourse theory Imee and Gean and Hanna vee
Mon the monitor model Joshua Via and
social interaction theory Neila and Jacynth
the variable competence Rejan
Feb 18 – the universal hypothesis Gean and Zephtanie Jay and
Thurs neurofunctional theory Via Iravyl
Five Hypotheses About Second Language Hanna vee
Acquisition and
https://bestofbilash.ualberta.ca/krashen.html Jacynth
Feb 22 – The Causative Variable in Second Language Zepthanie Princess and Imee and
Mon Acquisition Kristine Joshua
March 1- Grammar-translation Jay and Hanna Vee Zephtanie
Thurs Iravyl and Jacynth
Audio-lingualism Princess
and
Kristine
March 4 – Cognitive-code Imee and Neila and Imee and
Mon Joshua Rejan Joshua
The direct method Neila and
Rejan
March 8 – The natural approach Via and Imee and Princess
Thurs Gean Joshua and Joyce
Total physical response Hannah
and
Jacynth
March 11 Suggestopedia Zepthanie Jay and Gean and
– Mon Iravyl Via
March 15
– Thurs
March 18- Final Exam
Mon
According to the behaviorist theory of language acquisition, children learn language as they do any other
behavior: they mimic the language patterns of those around them, responding to the rewards and
punishments that follow from correct and incorrect usage, respectively.

Language acquisition" refers to the process of learning a language, although behaviorist ideas of
language acquisition specifically seek to understand how people learn their native language,
while only being more generally applicable to foreign language learning.

Because behaviorists frame language as a behavior, they argue that the process of language
acquisition, for an infant, is similar to the process of learning other behaviors. Infants mimic the
behaviors they see other people model, and correct imitation is rewarded by other people in their
environment, allowing for these successes to be identified and repeated. As a child ages,
punishments and corrections for incorrect language use will also be issued, helping to nuance the
language-learning process.

Behaviorists do not believe that learning is a process that involves active thought. Rather, they
see learning as a process of conditioning. So, to behaviorists, the rewards and punishments that a
language learner receives will...

In second-language acquisition, the Acculturation Model is a theory proposed by John Schumann to

describe the acquisition process of a second language (L2) by members of ethnic minorities [1] that
typically include immigrants, migrant workers, or the children of such groups. [2] This acquisition process
takes place in natural contexts of majority language setting. The main suggestion of the theory is that
the acquisition of a second language is directly linked to the acculturation process, and learners’
success is determined by the extent to which they can orient themselves to the target language
culture.

According to Brown, as culture is an integral part of a human being, the process of acculturation takes a
deeper turn when the issue of language is brought on the scene. Schumann based his Acculturation
Model on two sets of factors: social and psychological. Schumann asserts that the degree to which the
second-language learners acculturate themselves towards the culture of target-language (TL) group
generally depends on social and psychological factors; and these two sorts of factors will determine
respectively the level of social distance and psychological distance an L2 learner is having in course of his
learning the target-language.[6] Social distance, as Ellis notes, concerns the extent to which individual
learners can identify themselves with members of TL group and, thereby, can achieve contact with
them. Psychological distance is the extent to which individual learners are at ease with their target-
language learning task.[7] Schumann identifies eight factors that influence social distance: social
dominance, integration pattern, enclosure, cohesiveness, size factor, cultural congruence, attitude
factor, and intended length of residence. He also identifies three factors that influence psychological
distance: motivation, attitude, and culture shock.[8] Schumann later sought to extend the acculturation
model by assessing contemporary cognitive models for second language acquisition, including
McLaughlin’s cognitive theory, Hatch and Hawkins’ experiential approach, Bialystok and Ryan’s model of
knowledge and control dimensions, Anderson’s active control of thought framework, and Gasser's
connectionist lexical memory framework.[9]

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/discuss-variable-competence-model-proposed-by-rod-368460

https://geof950777899.wordpress.com/sla/variable-comptence-models/

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/ou_press/the-variable-competence-model-of-second-language-acquisition-and-why-n16elk1mPO

http://staffnew.uny.ac.id/upload/197804302008122001/pendidikan/first-second-language-acquisition-new.pdf

Nativization is the process whereby a language gains native speakers.[1] This happens necessarily where
a second language used by adult parents becomes the native language of their children. Nativization has
been of particular interest to linguists, and to creolists more specifically, where the second language
concerned is a pidgin.

amazing_jenny14@yahoo.com

iamwhoam08131092

dili napod ko ka Z mahal hehehehe hasul

Universal grammar (UG), in modern linguistics, is the theory of the genetic component of the language
faculty, usually credited to Noam Chomsky. The basic postulate of UG is that a certain set of structural
rules are innate to humans, independent of sensory experience. With more linguistic stimuli received in
the course of psychological development, children then adopt specific syntactic rules that conform to
UG.[1] It is sometimes known as "mental grammar", and stands contrasted with other "grammars", e.g.
prescriptive, descriptive and pedagogical.[2][3] The advocates of this theory emphasize and partially rely
on the poverty of the stimulus (POS) argument and the existence of some universal properties of natural
human languages. However, the latter has not been firmly established, as some linguists have argued
languages are so diverse that such universality is rare. [4] It is a matter of empirical investigation to
determine precisely what properties are universal and what linguistic capacities are innate.

The Universal Grammar (UG) hypothesis—the idea that human languages, as superficially diverse as
they are, share some fundamental similarities, and that these are attributable to innate principles
unique to language: that deep down, there is only one human language (Chomsky, 2000a, p. 7)

Universal Grammar is usually defined as the “system of categories, mechanisms and constraints
shared by all human languages and considered to be innate” (O’Grady et al., 1996, p. 734; cf.
also Chomsky, 1986, p. 3, 2007, p. 1; Pesetsky, 1999, p. 476). These are generally thought to
include formal universals (e.g., principles, i.e., general statements which specify the constraints
on the grammars of human languages, and parameters, which specify the options for
grammatical variation between languages) as well as substantive universals (e.g., lexical
categories and features). There is very little agreement, however, on what these actually are.

The theory of universal grammar proposes that if human beings are brought up under normal
conditions (not those of extreme sensory deprivation), then they will always develop language
with certain properties (e.g., distinguishing nouns from verbs, or distinguishing function words
from content words). The theory proposes that there is an innate, genetically determined
language faculty that knows these rules, making it easier and faster for children to learn to speak
than it otherwise would be.[5] This faculty does not know the vocabulary of any particular
language (so words and their meanings must be learned), and there remain several parameters
which can vary freely among languages (such as whether adjectives come before or after nouns)
which must also be learned. Evidence in favor of this idea can be found in studies like Valian
(1986), which show that children of surprisingly young ages understand syntactic categories and
their distribution before this knowledge shows up in production.[6]

As Chomsky puts it, "Evidently, development of language in the individual must involve three
factors: genetic endowment, which sets limits on the attainable languages, thereby making
language acquisition possible; external data, converted to the experience that selects one or
another language within a narrow range; [and] principles not specific to the Faculty of
Language."[7]