Linguistic perspective: Chomsky.

He is an American linguist, philosopher cognitive scientist, etc. He is credited as the creator or

the co-creator of the Universal Grammar theory. The basis to Chomsky's linguistics theory is that the
principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and
hence genetically transmitted. He therefore argues that all humans share the same underlying
linguistic structure, irrespective of socio-cultural difference. In this he opposes the radical behaviorist
psychology of B.F. Skinner.
A popular misconception is that Chomsky proved that language is entirely innate, and that is
why he discovered a "universal grammar" (UG). Chomsky simply observed that while a human baby
and a kitten are both capable of inductive reasoning, if they are exposed to exactly the same linguistic
data, the human will always acquire the ability to understand and produce language, while the kitten
will never acquire either ability. Chomsky labeled whatever the relevant capacity the human has that
the cat lacks as the language acquisition device (LAD), and he suggested that one of the tasks for
linguistics should be to determine what the LAD is and what constraints it imposes on the range of
possible human languages.
Since the 1960s, Chomsky has maintained that much of this knowledge is innate, implying that
children need only learn certain parochial features of their native languages. The innate body of
linguistic knowledge is often termed universal grammar. From Chomsky's perspective, the strongest
evidence for the existence of Universal Grammar is simply the fact that children successfully acquire
their native languages in so little time.
Universal grammar (UG) is a theory in linguistics which proposes that the ability to learn
grammar is stored into the brain. The theory suggests that linguistic ability manifests itself without
being taught and that there are properties that all natural human languages share.
The language properties inherent in the human mind make up 'Universal Grammar', which
consists, not of particular rules or of a particular grammar, but of a set of general principles that apply
to all grammars and that leave certain parameters open; Universal Grammar sets the limits within
which human languages can vary.
Chomsky thinks that, 'learning' is not the right word to describe how language develops.
Universal Grammar present in the child's mind grows into the adult's knowledge of the language so
long as certain environmental 'triggers' are provided; it is not learnt in the same way that, say, riding a
bicycle or playing the guitar are learnt:
Language acquisition is the growth of the mental organ of language triggered by certain
language experiences. So, to acquire language, the child needs not only Universal Grammar but also
evidence about a particular language; he needs to hear sentences of English to know how to fix the
parameter for the order of Verb, Subject, and Object. First of all it is concerned with grammatical
competence, the speaker's knowledge of the language
Summary:
Universal grammar: it is a theory that suggests that some rules of grammar are hard
wired into our brain, and manifest without being taught.
UG arguments:
1.Poverty of stimulus: children hear only a finite number of sentences and they can
produce an infinite number of sentences without any formal training.
2.Constrains and principles cannot be learnt because there are innate in our brain.
3.Patterns of development are universal: children learn various aspects of a language in a
very similar way.
Language Acquisition Device: The LAD is a system of principles that children are born with
that helps them learn language, and accounts for the order in which children learn structures, and the
mistakes they make as they learn. Second language learning theory proposes that acquisition is
possible in second and subsequent languages, and that learning programs have to create the conditions
for it. In the classroom the belief that acquisition is possible lies at the heart of any method that
involves engaging the learner in natural communication and authentic input, these include task-based
learning, CLIL, and some story- and activity-based programs.

Michael Halliday: SFL (Systemic Functional Linguistic)

He is a British-born Australian linguist who developed the internationally influential systemic
functional linguistic model of language. Halliday describes language as a semiotic system, "not in the
sense of a system of signs, but a systemic resource for meaning". Systemic Functional Linguistics is
an approach to language developed mainly by Michael Halliday in the UK and later in Australia.
Language use must be seen as taking place in social contexts. Language is not good or bad, it
is appropriate or inappropriate to the context of use. Language function (what it is used for) is often
more important than language structure (how it is composed). Systemic Functional (SF) theory views
language as a social semiotic a resource people use to accomplish their purposes by expressing
meanings in context
For Halliday, all languages involve three generalized functions, or metafunctions: one
construes experience (meanings about the outer and inner worlds); one enacts social relations
(meanings concerned with interpersonal relations), and one weaves together of these two functions to
create text (the wording).
Across Halliday's career he has probed the nature of language as a social semiotic system; that
is, as a resource for meaning across the many and constantly changing contexts of human interaction.
 SFL uses the idea of system to refer to language as a whole, (e.g. "the system of language")
It is important to note that dialogue and interaction are central to Michael Hallidays theory of
learning. That is, for Halliday(the main architect of SFL), learning a language is not so much a process
of acquiring a commodity that is out there but rather a process of construction in interaction with
others
This is a view shared by the psychologist L.S. Vygotsky (18961934) mentioned in a number
of articles. Vygotsky argued that learning and mental development need to be viewed as a social
process: it is through the interactions we enter into with other members of our culture, particularly
those more knowledgeable or proficient, that we make sense of the world and learn new (usually
culturally and socially specific) ways of seeing, doing and being. Thus patterns of interaction between
teachers and students (not dissimilar to parent child interaction) can be a powerful resource in
scaffolding students learning of language as well as their learning about and through language.
ARTICLE: Reclaiming Recess: Learning the language of Persuasion
SFL scholars view grammar as a dynamic system of linguistic choices that students learn to
use to accomplish a wide variety of social, academic, and political goals in and out of school.
According to SFL the job of the teacher is to heighten students awareness of the importance
of linguistic variation and broaden students' ability to use language more expertly across a variety of
social and academic contexts. For example, teachers can help students make more expert linguistic
choices that are sensitive to their immediate context by exploring the way language functions to enact
relationships among participants, convey meaning or ideas, and reflect the medium or mode of
communications.
Halliday mentions 3 functions:
1.Interpersonal (how texts vary in relation to who is communicating with whom sts to teacher.)
2.ideational (what they are communicating about)
3.Textual( the modes through which they are interacting paper and pencil)
SFL based scholarship offers a highly social and dynamic understanding of grammar and
academic literacy development. Applied to teaching and learning in the context of current school
reforms in the United States, this perspective centers on teachers critically diverse students in
analyzing and leaning to use academic language to accomplish meaningful social, academic and
political work.
The goals of SFL are not to canonize academic language practices or try to replace valuable
home and peer ways of using language. Rather, SFL scholarship works to acknowledge and value the
multiple social and linguistic worlds to which students already belong and to support them in
participating and creating possible future worlds by expanding the meaning making resources
available to them.
 Michael Lewis: Lexical Approach
It was published in 1993 with the aim to be an approach to be implemented in everyday
classes.
Language consists not of traditional grammar and vocabulary but often of multi-word
prefabricated chunks.
Teacher using the lexical approach will direct learner's attention to chunks which are as large
as possible.
Chunks like adjectives with nouns or words with prepositions. According to the LA language
consists of chunks when combined produce coherent texts.
4 different kinds of Chunks:
1.Words: words which can stand alone are lexical item.
2.Collocation: it is a phenomenon whereby certain words co-occur in natural text frequently.
There are collocations which are fully fixed and relatively fixed. The fact that two words co-occur it
does not mean they collocate.
Most EFL teachers teach adjectives associated with a preposition for example: relevant to or
suspicious of
Chunks can be larger for example: suspicious of people who... or relevant to our discussion.
This happens because we store much of our metal lexicon in fully contextualized phrases.
In the past, teacher used to teach chunks which were smaller.
3.Expressions: Fully fixed expressions: they must be learnt as a whole, these can be shorter
and these are frequently in spoken language for managing everyday situation.
Expressions like: It is a lovely day!- Happy new year!! - I would like a twin room for... night
please! These are prefabricated multi-word item that are store in our mental lexicon.
Many analysis have shown that we are not creative with the language, we are not
original.
4.Semi-fixed expressions: that is not my fault
There is a vast number of semi-fixed expressions and these occur widely in both spoken and
written language. For example: what was really interesting was... In this paper I wish to suggest a
3rd position.
5.Like Natural Approach and communicative approach communication is essential and it is the
heart of the language.
The main carrier of meaning is vocabulary; fluency is based on the acquisition of a large store
of fixed, semi-fixed prefabricated items. With regard to grammatical knowledge, it can be applied if
we possess large mental lexicon to be organized according to the creativity. It is not useful on its own.
 Some of the activities where LA is implemented:
Listening at lower levels and reading at higher levels
Activity based on L1/L2 comparisons and translations
The use of dictionary
ARBITRARINESS OF THE SIGN: it is a fundamental principle in Linguistics for example: a
pen is called pen in English because of a convention, everybody accepted this but you cannot ask why.
Teacher needs to internalize arbitrariness of lexical items, teachers tends to explain things but it carries
difficulties when the explanation is theoretically not enough.
There is nothing wrong when students say childs but children is standard. We could accept
goed instead of went. The conclusion that we have is English is like that.
The lexical items are arbitrary, they are simply the consensus of what has been institutionalized.
Etimology sometimes is helpful in order to understand the meaning of the word.
Arbitrariness affects also collocations. The lexical approach claims that many multi-word items
are word like in quality, ad share the arbitrariness of words.

The size of mental lexicon: We have acquired more vocabulary in everyday situations what
when we learn words separately. We have the mental capability to learn whole phrases like
collocations, idioms, fully fixed words (words are the most basic category of lexical items). If you are
British speakers and we feel the enormous size and limitations of your mental lexicon, but a real
American newspaper and turn to the sport section, the Britisher will understand words but the
collocations or fully fixed phrases will be complicated for them ans sometimes it turns
incomprehensible
Lexis is acquired through exposure of sts to a lot of listening and reading activities. If we
design the activities, we should take into account useful contexts (not just grammar or vocabulary in
isolation) and also exercises like matching, completing categorizing, sequencing and deleting
While lexical approach emphasizes probable language, based on observation of used
language, it recognizes clearly that lexis is no enough and that courses which totally discard grammar
are doing learners a serious disservice
The role of L1 in the lexical approach has to do with two ideas: translation and interference.
(esta bueno pa leerlo mas!)