VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:44:29 06/06/03 Fri
Author: Emiliane Moraes Silva
Subject: Task 5

# Compare the two texts and give your own opinion about how language is acquired.

After the texts, we can say that the acquistion language has differents perceptions. In my opinion, one of them is more pertinent and appropriate. Fractal Model of language acquistion brings along some interesting conceptions about the learner and the second language learning. First, Paiva argues that the acquistition and learning, like a body, are differents parts, interactives from the same system. In this aspect, the Krashen’s reader can detects that Imput Hypothesis is more segregationist. The concepts showed are less interactived.

I think that importants socials and cuturals factors are indispensables in a class of english, (english like second language). These points associated with intelligence, motivation make real the learning.
This argument is essential because the learner is active, like the language is active too, and the both have not be ignorated ou undersesting.
When a teacher ignores the characteristic active like relevant element, importants points, natural changes linguistics are not incorporated or assimilated, so the learning become superficial and cracked.

We can say that one of the most importan point, about the two texts, it’s the language conception. Krashen argues that the second language can be adaptede to be comprehensible to the learner. Paiva works the language like a continual process, of wich changes must be assimilated by the leaners. I agree with Paiva.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.