m Behaviourist Theory.

m Nativist Theory
m Cognitive Theory
m Interactionist Theory.
m hat effect does Ã
   have on the
input children learning their native language
receive?
m Can children understand words they have never
ever heard before but not be able to produce them
later on?
m Do slips of the tongue and performance variables
such as hesitations, memory limitations, and
distractions account for the level of competence
and performance?
m uow are the efficiency and success of language
learning determined by our innate ability to learn
languages and by the environment?
m Is there a fixed systematic process to learn the
first language? Can children learn and forget
patterns of the language?
m Does language affect thought or the reverse?
hich theories or hypothesis account for each
position?
m hy can children become poor imitators of the
surface structure of the language? (nobody don´t
like me)
m hy is interaction necessary for children to learn
features of discourse such as intended or
pragmatic meaning?
m uow does the frequency of meaningful occurrence
affect children´s comprehension practice?
pplied Lingustics.
m ractice and practice. Small children repeat things
over and over again, they pratice all the time. This
is what we must do when learning a FL.
m Imitate! Just like children we should imitate
everything
m Natural Order. First we practice sounds, then
words, then sentences, we should do the same
when learning a FL.
m Speech development. Children listen first then
they speak. This must be the right order of
presenting the skills in a foreign language.
m void translation! Children do not need to
translate to be able to learn the first language, the
same happens in SL.
m Use language! Children do not learn formal
grammar. It is unnecessary to use grammatical
conceptualization when teaching a foreign
language.
usubel (1964):
m ractice drilling lacks the meaningfulness
necessary for successful first and second
language acquisition.
m dults learning a foreign language could, with their
full cognitive capacities, benefit from deductive
presentations of grammar.
m The written form of the language could be
beneficial.
m The natural speed of language could be
overwhelming, they could benefit from ³teacher
talk´.
m Native language of second language learners is
not just an interferring factor.
m It is illogical to compare children FL with adult
SL.
m e should compare children FL and SL
m e should also compare children and adult SL.
m Critical eriod uypothesis
m uemispheric lateralization
m Biological timetables
m Right hemispheric participation
m Cognitive considerations*
m ffective considerations*
m Linguistic considerations*
m Clear pronunciation and tone of voice.
m Knowledge of the topic (plagiarism).
m Creativity (use of audiovisual tools).
m Research (mention sources).