-
Period: to
Behaviorism
Supported by B.F Skinner that states language learning is mainly a routine that involves Stimulus-Response-Reinforcement. Behaviorism also helped influence the Contrastive Analysis approach by agreeing that habit formation plays a major role in language acquisition. Similar to positive and negative transfers seen in Contrastive Analysis, Behaviorism can also include positive and negative reinforcement. It was not rejected as it is seen again in the Contrastive Analysis approach. -
Period: to
Structuralism
Structuralism is a detailed model that focuses on and describes the levels of production in speech. This includes phonology, syntax, morphology, lexicon, and nonverbal structures. Charles Fries strongly supported structuralism believing in the importance of the sound system and the features of arrangements in learning a new language. This was not rejected because it was seen being brought up in the Contrastive Analysis approach. -
Period: to
Universal Grammar
A linguistic structure originally developed by Noam Chomsky back in the 1950s. It was then brought up in the late 1970s. It overall claims that L1 acquisition can only develop by innate knowledge, regardless of what language it is. Two main concepts include how linguistic competence distinguishes from linguistic performance, and the concern of the logical problem of language learning. It was not rejected as it is seen brought back up in certain years. -
Period: to
Systemic Linguistics
Developed by M.A.K Halliday , this model analyzes language by focusing on language and its functions in social settings (external focus) .Some of these functions include Instrumental, Regulatory, and Personal. However, these functions does not fully explain the logical problem of language learning. -
Period: to
Mentalism
Strongly supported by Noam Chomsky , it is an approach that mainly focuses on the innate capacity of language learning. In other words, language learners have an inbuilt capacity of language. Noam Chomsky also introduced Transformational-Generative Grammar which argued against the behaviorist theory stating that language learners can not be imitating while producing sentences they have never heard before. This was not rejected because it influenced the Error Analysis approach. -
Period: to
Contrastive Analysis
Strongly supported by Roberto Lado which deeply investigates and predicts learner problems.It is done by viewing the similarities and differences that is compared in both L1 and L2. Positive and negative transfers identifies how each transfer is successful or not. However, this approach was not strong enough to explain the logical problem of language learning. Many of the L2 problems were still unexplainable and unpredictable which weakened the Contrastive Analysis approach. -
Period: to
Interlanguage
Strongly supported by Larry Selinker , it is the resetting of guidelines of new input seen in L2 when it is developing. Selinker informs that there are differences between Interlanguage development in SLA and L1 acquisition by children. Including , language transfer, transfer of training, and strategies of second language communication and learning. It was not rejected because it is still beneficial in the study of SLA. -
Period: to
Error Analysis
Strongly supported by S.Pit Corder , it is an approach that incorporates an internal focus on learners’ creative ability that guides them to establish a language. Unlike Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis is based on description and analysis of the errors found in L2 learners. These errors are broken down into steps that help analyze each error. This procedure is still used for the study of SLA however it does have some weak points like lack of positive date. -
Period: to
Function-to-form- Mapping
A functional approach which is being reinforced in describing and analyzing interlanguage.Talmy Givon determined the different characteristics between pragmatic and syntactic mode in Functions to Form Mapping. Grammaticalization is also importantly involved in this approach which describes the process of how language changes. -
Period: to
Morpheme Order Studies
Strongly supported by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt , it is an approach that targets the arrangements in which English grammatical morphemes are captured. Researches have determined that all language learners have a unique universal sequence for their grammatical development also known as natural order. It has not been rejected because it continues to strongly support innate structure that is being seen in both children and adults. -
Period: to
Functional Typology
An approach that classifies languages and their characteristics into different groups. The overall goal is to be able to describe the similarities and approaches that are seen in these patterns. This will then help realize which patterns occur consistently or if they are universal. Also known as markedness, in which you determine whether or not a feature is more normal or expected. Markedness Differential Hypothesis by Eckman also explain in further detail when it comes to L2 transfers . -
Period: to
Monitor Model
Strongly supported by Stephen Krashen , this revolves around the internal focus on learners’ creative construction of language. There are five major hypothesis that creates essential claims on how L2 code is being obtain. Some include, Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, Monitor hypothesis, and Natural Order hypothesis. Researches have criticized Krashen work, however it helped on language teaching in the United States between the years of 1980 and 1990. -
Period: to
Constructionism
It was developed within Noam Chomsky’s Minimalist Program that looks at interlanguage development as the ongoing knowledge of L2 vocabulary that also includes word structure and lexicon. It claims that parameter setting and morphological characteristics are not seen in older learners of SLA. -
Period: to
Information Organization
An approach which focuses on how linguistic units are being arranged. Linguistics such as Klein and Perdue, were able to describe the structures of interlanguages also known as learner varieties. In addition, this approach discovers what methods guide learner's production in certain stages of development and also helps analyze how these principals interact.