Hi,
I do know that my answers lead to your laughter,
Not at all!
but let me say what I think;
-Well, according to Krashen acquisiton is unconscious and learning is conscious.
Yes
- Interaction should be between you and me as a listener and a speaker or a writer and a reader. I think that if there was not Interaction, learning language woul fail, like "Gene" that she couldn't learn her L1 after her puberty. The left hemispher of her brain devoted to language didn't advance for not using first language. Because, to me, she didn't have interaction.
And, also, I think for missing interaction in GTM, Natrual Method, ALM classrooms and etc. to learn a foreign language, we can simply see the students fail to communicate with outside of the class.
Yes, I agree.
- As far as I know, learning language is not innate as Chomsky believed. If it was like that, Gene would learn it in the way that birds know how to fly or that you meet your needs naturally through eating, drinking and so on; nevertheless, I read in a newspaper a couple of years ago that linguists came to conclusion acquiring language was, somehow, related to "innateness". I don't know how much such a source is reliable!
It's still a source of contention. Wild children who do not learn language after puberty are not an argument against an innate learning device, because you also have to consider the Critical Period Hypothesis as well.
Although I read much that children learn their language unconsciously, I think that they acquire their first language consciously because they can control their language and they don't use it without thinking.