Antecedentes de las líneas de créditos para comercio exterior

The audio-lingual approach, which was very popular until 1960s, was affected by the theory of behaviourism in the way that language learning was viewed as establishing a set of habits rather than innate capacity. Teachers were supposed to help this habits develop in learners through positive reinforcement and conditioning. However, there is no explicit teaching or explanation of grammatical rules. Students do not need to think and understand grammar to communicate. Linguistic forms and grammar are taught inductively in the form of presenting dialogues and introducing structural drills. Students’ activities include the overlearning or in other term the extensive repetition and memorisation of dialogues and structural patterns. Overlearning was emphasised in order to help learners produce sentences automatically without stopping and thinking to linguistic forms and thus they could respond unconsciously in their interactions. Language in this approach is primarily oral and is

conceived of as a means of communication. Thus, there is much use of language laboratories, and audio-video tools as learning aids. This is also

specifically important in order to develop native like pronunciation, which is emphasized in audio-lingual method. Teacher acts as a model of the target language and students are supposed to mimic this model. In so doing, teachers are required to fulfil their role as an accurate model for imitation. This requires them to be native speakers and have a good knowledge of linguistics. Teachers are in front, and control the students’ behaviours. Based on the theory of behaviourism, errors are regarded as bad habits, so they should be eradicated as soon as they emerge to prevent bad habit formation (Gass & Selinker, 2013; Griffiths, 2004; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Larsen-Freeman & Freeman, 2008; Prichard, 2009).

Contrastive analysis associated with Fries (1945) and Lado (1957) was incorporated in teaching to predict learning difficulties and prevent errors simply based on linguistic similarities and differences between L1 and L2: ‘…those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult’ (Lado, 1957, p. 2). Contrastive analysis’ underlying theory was that language is a set of habits (Gass & Selinker, 2013). Based on contrastive analysis hypothesis all errors were seen as interference of linguistic forms or transfer of habits from the learners’ first language to the target language. Fries (1945) who initiated contrastive analysis wrote:

The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner (p. 9).

So, for a pedagogical activity to be successful, it was necessary to develop teaching materials through structural, morphological and cultural comparison of the two languages to determine potential errors based on similarities and differences (Gass & Selinker, 2013).

In 1959, Chomsky strongly questioned the previous structuralist- behaviourist theory of learning for its assumptions about language and learning (Weiten, 2013). He criticised Skinner for a quick generalisation of his experiment on animals to human beings. Chomsky posited that imitation and stimulus-response theories of learning are insufficient to explain how people come to create an infinite number of sentences and perceive sentences they have never heard before (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Weiten, 2013). He argued that there are unlimited numbers of sentences in a language; as such it does not seem reasonable to expect that languages be learned entirely by imitation (Larsen-

Freeman & Anderson, 2011). He argued that cognition makes it possible to produce and perceive an unlimited number of sentences with the knowledge of a limited number of grammatical rules (Larsen-Freeman &

Anderson, 2011; Weiten, 2013).

2.2.4

‘Universal Grammar’ theory of language and

psychological ‘Nativist’ theory of language learning

In explaining language and how it is acquired, on a cognitive basis in the context of linguistics and psychology, Chomsky took the position that language is creative rather than memorized, rule governed rather than being a habit and that universal phenomenon of the human mind underlies all languages. The core of Chomsky’s theory which is called ‘Nativist’ theory (drawing from the word nature) (Weiten, 2013, p. 322) is that every human being is biologically equipped with an inborn

language acquisition device (LAD), that irrespective of what language is to be acquired, enables him/her to process the language perception and production (Jordan, 2004; Weiten, 2013). This innate mechanism is responsible for the early stages of language development and enables children to acquire language without formal instruction. Child language acquisition is guided by a set of internal principles called universal Grammar (UG) i.e. grammar which is common to all languages (Jordan, 2004; Shaffer & Kipp, 2013; Weiten, 2013).

The innateness of UG explains that the individuals’ various aspects of linguistic knowledge extend beyond the limited input that they are exposed to (poverty of stimulus) (Gass & Selinker, 2013; White, 2003).

Nevertheless, Chomsky does not deny the influence of the external factors and environment in the process of language acquisition. In his view language learning is an innate process, which can be activated and improved by exposure to a particular natural language (Blake, 2013). He also identified a concept of generative transformational grammar, which explains if children are provided with rich and sustained input to develop their internal linguistic knowledge (competence), their ability to produce language (performance) gradually develops through time, and the

acquisition and use of the language becomes automatic and natural (Blake, 2013). The grammatical system he identified consists of deep structures and surface structures. Deep structures are the underlying structures that contain the meaning of the sentence, and surface

structures deal with the surface form of the sentence, which include the sounds and words in a sentence and their function is to help deliver the underlying meaning. The UG theory posits that the innate grammar or syntax mediates between deep and surface structure (Gass & Selinker, 2013).

By the distinction between competence and performance, and deep structure and surface structure, in the nativists’ view, slip of the tongue, grammatically false sentences, and memory lapses that may happen due to fatigue or distraction are regarded as part of performance and are of little importance (Gass & Selinker, 2013). What are important for

Chomskyans are the limitations (or errors) that are characterised as the insufficient knowledge of the underlying structure (competence) (Blake, 2013; Brumfit, 1983). This knowledge is labelled as the ideal

competence, which consists of interpretation and use of both

grammatically accurate and stylistic appropriate language for certain contexts (Brumfit, 1983).

To put it succinctly, Chomsky proposed a cognitive definition for both language and language acquisition. Language, as he suggested, is a rule-governed system and is essentially a human mental capacity:

‘sentences are not learned by imitation and repetition but “generated’’

from the learner's underlying “competence”’ (Richards & Rodgers,

2014, p. 66).

Although Chomsky’s theory was primarily concerned with the

child’s first language acquisition (Kirsch, 2008), it was massively influential in the SLA field and brought about a rapid paradigm shift in linguistics and the SLA field (Blake, 2013; Jordan, 2004). Drawing on the learning theories of cognitive psychology and Chomsky’s theory of transformational-generative grammar, the Cognitive Code Approach in language teaching was established (Blake, 2013; Chastain, 1988).

2.2.5

Cognitive Code Approach: basic principles and