See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357403580

What is the Nature of Language? How does it Behave? What is Language

Learning then? A Review Paper in Applied Linguistics

Article in Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal · December 2021
DOI: 10.47175/rielsj.v2i4.357

CITATIONS READS

0 18,009

1 author:

Job Wilson Mwakapina

Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA)
12 PUBLICATIONS 98 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Influence of Language of Instruction on Students’ Academic Outcomes: The Experience of Secondary Schools in Morogoro, Tanzania View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Job Wilson Mwakapina on 29 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics
Science (RIELS) Journal
Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2021 | Page 603-618 |
http://www.randwickresearch.com/index.php/rielsj

What is the Nature of Language? How does it Behave?

What is Language Learning then? A Review Paper in
Applied Linguistics
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47175/rielsj.v2i4.357

| Job W. Mwakapina |
Department of Language
ABSTRACT
Studies, College of Social
Language is viewed differently by people from different fields, and
Sciences and Humanities,
one of the reasons why linguists and philosophers encounter
Sokoine University of
difficulties in clarifying what the study of language should involve
Agriculture, Morogoro,
has to do with the general view that language means many things to
Tanzania
people from different disciplines. This paper provides a
comprehensive and analytical discussion patterning to the nature of
jvdmwakapina@gmail.com language, theories, methods, and approaches to language teaching
and learning based on a literature review. In particular, the paper
answers questions of what is the nature of language, what is
involved in the study of a language and how does it behave? And
how language can be taught effectively? To address these questions,
the paper has reviewed various studies on the definition of language
and the trend in trying to define language. Also, it has examined
how much scholars have defined language economically, but
adequately, and it has discussed the nature of language and its
assumptions or theories, then it has indicated how language can be
best taught. The review indicates that there are conflicting claims
about the nature of language, and thus, it is difficult to define the
nature of language or to tie it down to one statement, for it means
many things to different people. The paper concludes that it is
difficult to define the nature of language comprehensively in one
statement, and the concept of language teaching is mainly
influenced by the idea of the nature of language, and on how
language is taught and learnt. Therefore, success in language
teaching depends on the learning environment, how a teacher views
what is a language or the nature of language and on the
motivations of learning provided to the learners.
KEYWORDS
language; nature of language; language teaching and learning

INTRODUCTION
The question about what is the nature of language has been vexing many linguists for
several years now. The question has invited so many other questions like what is language,
and what is the study of language? And how language can be taught effectively? This
paper attempts to define what language is, shows the trend in trying to define a language,
examines how much scholars have defined language economically but adequately,
discusses the nature of language and its theories, and explains what is all about language
learning, language teaching, and finally looks at the theories of learning and how these
theories influence language learning and teaching. Generally, the paper provides a
comprehensive and analytical discussion patterning to the nature of language, theories,
approaches, and methods for language teaching and learning.

-603-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

There are conflicting claims over the theories and techniques of language teaching and
different ways of looking at language and of describing what is made of, and what
language is. Mackey and Francis (1966) argued that language teaching is one of the vexing
issues in education, and one can find the best teaching method by testing the results.
However, this is a mere way of looking at issues because a method is one thing and using it
in the teaching is the other thing. This is to say, a good method of teaching does not
guarantee good learning, since good learning or effective learning is an interplay of many
factors. According to Mackey and Francis (ibid), language teaching is governed by the idea
of the nature of language as well as the view on how language is learnt. They argue further
that differences in language description influence what is taught by producing analysis of
pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary which may vary in both type and extent. This
implies that a teaching methodology that will be used on an idea that we learn a Second
Language (L2) as a child learns his/her native language or First Language (L1) will differ
from the one which emphasizes that we fail to learn L2 well because of an intervention
from our native languages.
Language teaching may refer to an instruction of any language be it L1 or L2 or Foreign
Language (FL) in either a formal or informal situation within a system of education. In
particular, formal language teaching may include explicit instruction of grammar,
spellings, and punctuations, and composition of the language. Thus, a language teaching
method and the teaching of a language rest on what a teacher thinks what is language or
the nature of language. In other words, if a teaching method is based on the idea that a
language is a collection of words, it will differ from the one which considers language to
be a system. Therefore, different disciplines of knowledge have focused on language, and
some have attempted elaborating theories to explain its working while others have come up
with different answers to the simple question: what is language?

What is language?
One of the distinguishing features of humans and other creatures is the ability to use
language to think and to talk or communicate. Language is a very important aspect or
characteristic of human beings. In most cases, a lot of human activities are done through
language. This is to say, language dominates many activities/aspects of human beings. In
essence, it is a key factor that makes human beings different from other creatures. It is a
gift endowed to human beings only. Through a language, human beings can communicate
or transfer thoughts, ideas, and knowledge from one person to the other. Edward Sapir and
his student Benjamin Whorf argue that we think through a language, and the structure of a
language affects its speaker’s worldview or cognition, meaning that individuals’
perceptions are relative to their spoken language (Kay & Kempton, 1984). Based on
Whorf- Sapia’s view, it means that individuals’ thoughts, perceptions and actions are either
determined or influenced by the language they speak. That is to say, according to Spir and
Whorf language dictates our thoughts. If language dictates our thoughts, this implies that it
is difficult to think of something if it does not exist in your language.
Different linguists (Sapir, 1921; Wardhaugh, 1972; Lyons, 1981; Robins, 1985;
Chomsky, 2000) have attempted to define what language is. For example, Sapir (1921)
defines language as a human and inherent method of communicating ideas, emotions and
desires through a system of vocal symbols. Also, Wardhaugh (1972) views language as a
system of arbitrary vocal symbols by which a social group cooperates. Again, according to
Lyons (1981), languages are the principal systems of communication used by particular
groups of human beings within a particular society of which they are members. Robins
(1985) defines language as a system of conventions symbols, which can be extended or

-604-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

modified according to the changing needs of the speakers. On the contrary, Chomsky
(2000) defines a language as the innate capability of the native speakers to understand and
form grammatical sentences, which can be finite or infinite. In Merriam-Webster
dictionary (2013), language is defined as a human system of words or signs that people use
to express thoughts or feelings to each other. Thus from these definitions, there are key
features that are emphasized such as ‘language is human’, ‘a system’, arbitrary, ‘vocal’,
‘symbols’, and a ‘means of communication’, which are also the characteristics of a human
language. Therefore, it is evident that it can be difficult to have a comprehensive definition
that encompasses all these characteristic features of a language, or a single definition of a
language that completely defines the term language by bringing out all the properties of
language.
Along the same lines, language is viewed differently by people from different fields. To
the philosophers, language is considered as an instrument of thought, to the sociologist,
language is a form of behaviour, to the psychologists, language is a cloudy window
through which a glimpse of working of the mind is made, and to a linguist, language is a
system of arbitrary signs (Mackey & Francis, 1966). O’Grady and Katamba (1987) say that
language is many things: a system of communication, a medium for thought, a vehicle for
literal expression, a social institution, a matter for political controversy, a catalyst for
nation-building. Furthermore, the two scholars view language holistically, in two ways:
one as a factor for the unity of a nation, and next, as a system in which the interrelated
terms or elements work together to perform a function or carry over communication.
Apart from O’Grady and Katamba, a linguist de Saussure has also attempted to define
what language is. He looks at language based on two aspects, which he gives them the
names of langue and parole. The former term refers to the abstract linguistic system which
is shared by all members of a speech community. It is not spoken by anyone but is thought
to be the generalised rules of a language. By contrast, the latter term is the actualised
language or the realisation of langue in speech which is idiosyncratic and specific to the
situation in which it occurs. A similar kind of distinction is made by an American linguist
Noam Chomsky; he gives two terms in defining language, competence and performance.
He says that competence is the ideal language users’ knowledge of the rules of grammar,
while performance is the actual realisation of this knowledge in utterances. However,
Chomsky (1965)’s terms and de Saussure are not exactly equivalent as one can see. De
Saussure describes langue as a social product, while Chomsky (1965) regards competence
as a property of the mind of an individual. In this regard, in the teaching process, at one
time, a teacher may wish to teach the underlying rules of a language (langue), and at the
other time, she/he may wish to present useful material which the students can use in their
utterances. In this sense, the distinction of langue and parole leads to conflicting aims. As
Saporta points out, an ability to verbalise the rules may interfere with the students’ ability
to acquire fluent speech habits (Saporta, 1996 in Allen & Corder, 1975). Therefore, this is
a paradoxical situation which each teacher will attempt to resolve in his/her own way; in a
classroom situation, some teachers are seen making grammatical statements that are
oversimplified, others, as it has been common to many of the school teachers in Tanzania
spend a lot of time talking about grammar than helping students become fluent through
oral and written practices.
Similarly, de Saussure regards language as a system; a system in which all the terms are
interrelated and where the values depend solely upon the simultaneous presence of all the
others. Allen and Corder (1975) claim that not everyone would agree that a language is
described as a single total system, but there is no doubt that parts of a language can be
described in terms of a system. Allen postulates further that when we use a particular tense

-605-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

form in any language we convey meaning because that form contrasts with the other forms
in the tense system which we might have used if we had chosen to do so. Hence the
importance of structural system has highly been emphasized by linguists, as to how Fries
(Fries, 1955 in Allen & Corder, 1975:29) claims ‘we should not teach habits concerning
items as items, but habits about an ordered system of structural patterns’.
For that case, awareness of the overall structure of a language is important in
constructing a pedagogic grammar as how these experts emphasize. Allen and Corder say
the first task in learning a language is to master the sound system and this involves
identifying the distinctive sound and learning to approximate their production. The fact
that a language is a system and not a mere collection of separate parts can be illustrated on
the phonological level regarding the English stop sounds. For example, the sounds in Table
1 are differentiated from one another based on where and how they are articulated. Also,
each of these six sounds has a contrastive value which makes it possible to distinguish
words from one another such as pin,…….bin,….pen,…..ten,…..bed,…..beg. The value of /p/
is distinct from /b/ and of /b/ as distinct from /d/ drives from the membership of the sounds
in a system.
Table 1. Articulation
Place of articulation Bilabial Alveolar Velar
Manner of articulation Voiceless b t k
Voiced p d g

In addition, other linguists, part from de Saussure, such as Leonard Bloomfield and
Noam Chomsky consider language as a structural pattern. Chomsky (1965) considers
linguistic structure as a theory that generates all and only grammatical sentences. On the
contrary, Bloomfield (1970) considers the structure as a line or a sequence of smaller units
of a language which are phonemes. Mackey and Francis (1966) argue that Chomsky’s
transformation grammar theory uses a series of transformations to connect the most general
structures of language. The theory explains how the limited number of structural elements
in a language can produce an unlimited number of sentences.
Linguists together with psychologists are vexed much on whether the knowledge of
linguistic grammar can contribute to the improvement of language teaching methodology.
If that may be the case, what is the nature of the contribution is likely to be? Allen and
Widdowson (1974) claim that Chomsky’s model of grammar is important in that it has had
a profound effect on how linguists and psychologists think about language. Further,
transformation grammar provides many useful issues important for a discussion of
pedagogical grammar and the construction of practical teaching material. Therefore,
understanding the link between knowledge of a language and language teaching is needed
by making a distinction between scientific grammar or formal grammar and practical
grammar or pedagogical grammar.
Scientific and pedagogical grammars are difficult as how Allen and Widdowson view
them. A scientific grammar is about specifications of the formal properties of language,
with the code rather than the use of the code, while a pedagogical grammar is concerned
with verbalised rules which may be useful for a learner to gain knowledge of a language
and its fluency (Allen & Widdowson, 1974). These scholars view a theory of
transformation grammar to be based on the nature of the relationship between pedagogical
grammar and scientific grammar. Chomsky (2006) claims that the theory of transformation
generative grammar tries to make some fair proposals about the organisation of human
language and puts them to empirical tests. Chomsky nevertheless, clarifies that a theory of

-606-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

grammar is about the question: what is the nature of one’s knowledge of his/her language?
To him, a person who knows a language is a person who is proficient in the language. In
other words, such a person has mastered rules of a given language that assign meanings to
different sounds, and the knowledge of the language enables him/her to use the language
creatively, to create an infinite number of sentences.
Generally, the transformation grammar of Chomsky is of particular importance to the
English language teacher. This is because transformation grammar is claimed to be the
formal representation of a native speaker’s linguistic competence; that is the knowledge
that the language teacher hopes to teach students during teaching. It can be asked that what
contribution transformation grammar is likely to make to language teaching methodology.
Should it be used as an indirect base for teaching material? Saporta (1966 in Allen &
Widdowson, 1974) argues that the knowledge of transformation grammar helps textbook
writers to focus their materials on the most adequate description because transformation
grammar gives the most appropriate basis for language teaching. According to Saporta, the
habit formation procedure of the audio-lingual methods is based on a scant learning theory
since fluency cannot be obtained through rote learning and the memorisation of long lists
of sentences. He then says:
Successful language teaching is not a matter of applying any one method, but
of finding through practical experience, the most effective contributions of a
number of different activities including automatic drills, meaningful drills and
simple grammatical explanations (Saporta, 1966 in Allen & Widdowson,
1974:67)
This is to say, Saporta looks at language learning as more than habit formation based on
rote learning and memorisation; he needs advancement from habit formation to the
knowledge of the language that is abstract, which is the native speaker’s competence
(transformation grammar).
Similarly, some other writers suggest that step-by-step enumeration of rules of the type
found in Chomsky’s grammar can be integrated into language teaching materials, for
instance, through exercises, so that students can have a complete set of instructions for
producing grammatical sentences in the target language. One question can be asked: which
form of the teaching material can be appropriate in helping students to internalise the
relevant rule? Allen and Widdowson (1974) claim that language is rule-governed
behaviour but this does not mean that teachers must begin to encourage conscious rule-
learning in every part of the syllabus; in some cases, learning may be impossible without a
conscious understanding of the rule involved. For example, these sentences adapted from
Allen and Widdowson (1974:71) show the need for learning the rules:
1. I have lived here for two years
2. I have lived here for six months
3. I have lived here since 1965
4. *I have lived here for 1965
The first three sentences are well-formed and the last one, with * asterisk, is ill-formed.
This is because the learner has not perceived the fundamental rule that since is used in
English for naming time while for is used for counting time. As a result, a student would
be forced to learn by trials and errors to be able to communicate if the rule has not been
uttered explicitly in a lesson plan or syllabus. Therefore, conscious insights into the
learning materials can help students to predict the behavioural phenomena not brought up
under direct observation in the teaching text. How can a grammar of a language be taught
then? This can be left to a teacher himself/herself to find the best way of helping students
to internalise the rules of a language, knowing that learning a language, as Allen and

-607-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

Widdowson (1974) put it, involves acquiring knowledge of the language together with the
ability to use the knowledge in producing appropriate utterances and being able to
understand utterances uttered by others.
Having considered language as a system, from another standpoint, language is
considered as behaviour. Some scholars like anthropologists, sociologists and a few
linguists like Zipf regard language as being composed of units of behaviour. Zipf's
immediate area of interest was on statistics but later his principle became to be applied in
applied linguistics particularly in lexical diffusion, conversation analysis, and language
acquisition (Nordquist, 2019). Zipf states that language depends upon the principle of the
least efforts. In human action, a human would tend to use the least amount of effort to
accomplish tasks including verbal communication (ibid). Therefore, this is to say that
according to Zipf the form of language used in human communication is an agreement
between the desires of the speaker to get the hearer to understand him/her, with a minimum
of effort.

RESEARCH METHODS
The paper intended to find out how scholars have defined language economically and
adequately and what do they say about the nature of language and on how language can be
taught effectively. In doing that, there were several questions that guided the study such as
what is language? What is the nature of language? And how does it behave? What are the
approaches of language teaching and learning? Lastly, how language can be best taught?
According to Hallinger (2013), systematic literature reviews can help in pointing the best
ways toward productive conceptualisations of the problem, and setting methodologies for a
subsequent research, and hence enhancing the quality of theoretical and empirical efforts
of a researcher to contribute to knowledge production. Thus, conducting a systematic
literature review was necessary to explore how different scholars have defined language
and the nature of language economically and adequately, and to find out what scholars
consider the best approaches in language teaching. In conducting the review, the following
steps: (i) formulation of research questions, (ii) identification of key words and
examination of review according to key themes, (iii) selection of articles that adhere to the
research criteria, (iv) assessment of articles, and (v) extraction of results into a synthesis in
the final discussion, which are also suggested by Briner and Denyer (2012) and Khan et al.,
(2003), were followed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Conflicting Claims about Language
What is the Nature of Language?
One of the very important questions that this paper intended to address is the question
about the nature of language. Mackey and Francis (1966) argue that language teaching is
influenced by the ideas on the nature of language, differences in language descriptions
directly affect what is taught, and by the idea on how the language is learned. They argue
further that the concept of nature of language sweeps from the view that language is a
sequence of sounds to the conception of language as everything that can be talked about it.
Thus, according to Mackey and Francis when one talks about the nature of language,
several things are subsumed in it, and some overlap. Therefore, there are six aspects or
assumptions, as discussed below, which most of the works of literature ( e.g Mackey &
Francis, 1966; Lyons, 1981; Robins, 1985; Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Fairclough, 1997)
indicate that a language theory should look at when considering the nature of language.

-608-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

Language as a substance
First, as a substance, a language theory should assume that language by nature is a
substance; language is composed of items that one can see and hear, feel and think about.
Mackey and Francis (1966) say language as a substance can be subdivided into content
substance. The view here is that the content of the words comes from universal mental
concepts and expression substance, so the focus here is what can be seen or heard, which
language is. Most of the theories that consider language from a physical point of view are
the phonetic theories (acoustic phonetics).
Language as a form
Second, language as a form is assumption number two. A language theory should assume
that language is by nature a form. Some theories of language do not consider language as
substance but as a form. Language as a content form is considered not as thought itself but
as a separate symbolic form. In his symbolic philosophy, Cassirer (1944) defined people as
"symbolic animals". In this view, Cassirer argues further that human beings understand
their worldview through giving meanings to different things in symbolic patterns.
Bloomfield (in Mackey & Francis, 1966) excludes both mind and matter from linguistics,
and he says a linguist is not capable of dealing with problems of psychology… in dealing
with the nature of language he thus says language classifies speech by form and not by
meaning.
Language as both form and substance
The third assumption is language as a form and substance. While some theories consider
language as a form others insist that language by its nature is also a substance. Mackey and
Francis (1966) argue that the thought and things we talk about are the substance of
language content or the substance of content and the expression. One question arises to this
assumption; how are the things and ideas about which people talk relate to the units of
meaning (content form) by which the listener recognises what is said by the speaker? Some
theories consider the origin of these patterns in the real world and others consider it to be
found in the language itself. Sapir and Whorf saw language as a self-contained, creative
symbolic organisation. In expanding this view into a theory, these scholars argue that the
structure of a grammar of a language is not only an instrument for replicating ideas
(voicing ideas) but it is also itself the shaping instrument of the ideas (Mackey & Francis,
1966). Thus, theories of this kind indicate that language is likely to be able to express
certain things and incapable of others and a language teaching method based on this
regards language instruction as the teaching of a new model of thought.
Language as an activity
Other linguists and teachers consider language as an activity. Language as an activity
refers to how language is utilised by man. In this case, language is considered as either a
pursuit of the mind or the brain. As a pursuit of mind language, it may be considered as
mental action (psycho- mechanics) or as stimulus-response. Language as a stimulus-
response is considered as a verbal response to external stimulus (Mackey & Francis, 1966).
It is regarded as an immediate animal-like reaction to what is perceived. Hence, language
learning is treated as a stimulus-response process. This has given rise to different teaching
methods based on this view.
Language as a system of arbitrary vocal symbols
Other scholars such as Wardhaugh (1972), Lyons (1981), and Robins (1985) when they
look at the nature of language consider it to be a system of arbitrary vocal symbols. All

-609-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

languages work through symbols. Different symbols used in a certain language form
different words; the symbols in a language stand for certain things. The language will work
effectively in performing its functions if its symbols are appropriately perceived by both
the speaker and the listener/receiver of the message. Symbols which are used in a language
are vocal. A language system is used in speech, and only speech provides all important
signals of a language. In essence, not all kinds of symbols are vocal; there are others,
which cannot be called vocal symbols. Notably, gestures and signals for flags are visual
symbols, while the symbol for a ringing bell and beating drum are auditory symbols. They
are not called vocal symbols because they do not form any language. Also, in a language,
the sounds are generated through vocal organs. Thus, human language is characterised by a
system of arbitrary vocal symbols.
Language as structural view, communicative view and interactional view
Apart from Mackey and Francis, Richards and Rodgers have tried to talk about the nature
of language. Richards and Rodgers (1986) treat the nature of language based on three
major areas: these are such as the structural view of language, the communicative view of
language, and the interactional view of language. To begin with a structural view of
language, they perceive the nature of language as a system of structural related elements
which carries meaning, and these elements are such as phonological units (phonemes),
grammatical units (phrases, clauses, sentences) grammatical operations, and lexical items
(functional words and structural words). Richards and Rodgers argue that the target for
language learning according to this view is the mastery of elements of this system and
some of the learning methods based on this view are audio-lingual methods and total
physical response.
Furthermore, Rodgers and Richards (1986) view the nature of language as
communicative or functional. This is the view that language is the vehicle for the
expression of functional meaning. Under this view, they emphasize much on the semantic
and communicative dimensions of a language than the grammatical characteristics. They
argue that the target for language learning is to learn to express communication functions
and categories of meaning and some of the language learning approaches and methods
based on this view are such as the communicative approach, functional notional syllabus
and the natural approach.
Their last view of the nature of language is the interactional view. The interactional
view of language considers language fundamentally as the means for starting and
maintaining interpersonal relationships and for carrying out social transactions among
individuals. They argue that the target of learning is to initiate and maintain conversations
with other people. The research areas under this view are interactional analysis and
conversational analysis. Norman Fairclough supports this view of looking at the nature of
language as interactional. Fairclough (1992) uses the term discourse to stress the
ideological struggle within the functioning of language. Also, Vygotsky (1986) in his
social cognition learning model supports the interactional view. The Vygotsky model can
be applied in learning in the sense that children learn much through interactions. Thus
scholars who support the interactional view of language stress curricula to emphasize
interactions between learners and learning tasks.
Generally, the review of literature shows that there are conflicting claims about what
does the nature of language mean. As such, it is difficult, as it is to the definition of
language, to define or tie down comprehensively in one statement what the nature of
language means since the review indicates that linguists considered the nature of language

-610-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

to mean so many things to different people; such things are a form, a substance, an activity,
form and substance, and a system, to mention a few.

Approaches/Theories and Methods of Language Learning

The other area of focus was the part of approaches or theories of learning. Some different
approaches or theories attempt to explain how individuals learn new knowledge and these
theories are significant in the process of language learning. These theories are behavioral
learning theories, cognitive learning theories, social cognitive theories, and a humanistic
approach to mention a few. This section discusses various language learning theories
together with the teaching methods arising from the approaches. Before embarking on a
discussion, a distinction between a teaching approach and a teaching method is presented
first. The terms ‘teaching approach’ and ‘teaching method’ are different, and are not very
clear to many people. First, an approach is a broader term than a method; it is an overall
view or a way of looking at things or ways of facing a problem or a way of theorising a
situation or a problem. Thus, a teaching approach is a philosophy of how to teach, and it
can have many methods within it (Gill & Kusum, 2017). For example, a communicative
approach is an approach to language teaching which uses task-based teaching as a
methodology used in teaching or to make students learn. Therefore, various approaches are
used in the teaching-learning process such as teacher-centred approach, child-centred
approach or students-centred approach, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
approach, structural approach, and inductive together with a deductive approach.
According to Gill and Kasum (2017), a method is a general plan for systematic delivery
of the subject matter based on a selected approach or a method is the practical realisation
of an approach through a step-by-step procedure of presenting a subject matter. Besides, a
method is a wider term that covers both strategies and techniques of teaching (ibid). Also,
a strategy is a skillful planning of a working system by which the learning objectives can
be easily achieved. Thus, a teaching method is a style of delivery of content in a classroom,
while a teaching strategy is a way to achieve learning objectives (Gill & Kasum, 2017).
The relationship between the three concepts: an approach, method, and
techniques/strategies according to Mwakapina (2020) can be best illustrated more by an
egg or the three layers of an egg. For example, the outer layer of an egg is the same as an
approach, and after an outer layer of an egg, there are other two layers, the layer next to the
outer layer is the methods, while the innermost layer (the yellowish one) is the
technique/strategy. Therefore, different theories about the nature of language and how
languages are learnt, that is an approach, and the different ways of teaching languages, that
is, methods, and the different methods make use of different kinds of classroom activities
those are techniques/strategies.

Theories of Language Teaching and Learning

Behavioral learning theory
To begin with Behavioral Learning Theory (BLT), Fetsco (2005) argues that from the
behavioural perspective learning occurs when environmental stimuli generate a relatively
permanent and observable change in a learner’s response. To behaviorist psychologists,
learning is observable and measurable as Fetsco claims that a stimulus is an observable
environmental event that exerts control over behavioral response and a response is an overt
behaviour by a learner. Therefore, behaviorist believes that learning is measurable and
observable that is to say language learning is observable and measurable; a teacher can
observe the changes that are taking place to a student and can measure them.

-611-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

The founders of the BLT are people like Pavlov and F. Skinner who came up with classical
conditioning and operant conditioning principles respectively. Skinner says what is central
to human learning is the stimulus that follows the response. To Skinner what is behaviour
is what is observable. Behaviorists contend that a child acquires a language through
imitations for instance cooing and bubbling as a child imitates the sound he has to be given
a reward. However, some arguments can be posed over this issue of rewards or
reinforcement. For example, each moment a learner or a student answers a question
correctly, the teacher gives him/her 500/=Tanzanian shillings. What will happen if rewards
are stopped? It is obvious that the student will revert to the earlier misbehavior.
The method of teaching that is associated with the behavioral approach to language
learning is the audio-lingual method. Richards and Rodgers (1986), the propounders of the
method say that it is a language learning method in a formalised environment and the
method involves heavy use of mimic, imitations, drills and speech, and writing is not
emphasized. To them, the presence of a teacher emphasizes primacy which is listening and
speaking and they view language learning as habit formation by memorisation or repetition
by drills(like dialogue). One of the most important tenets of the BLT is that language
learning is primarily a process of automatic habit formation (Richards & Rodgers, 1986).
Thus, good habits are produced preferably by giving correct responses than making errors.
Due to this, language learning was considered as verbal behaviour, in which, mechanical
production and comprehension of utterances can be learnt by making students do the same
through imitation or memorisation. This method and the approach reduce learners into
passive imitators of the teacher’s or adult’s speech. There are times when language learners
produce words and utterances that have never been heard by their teachers or in adult
speech. What can be said about this if learning is only about habit formation or imitation?
Also, sometimes when learners are told by their teachers to imitate the structures or speech
but they repeatedly produce different speech or structures. What can be said about this?
Drawing on this, it can be said that language learning is a complex phenomenon that
cannot be reduced only to the imitation of structures or sounds.
Cognitive language learning theories
The other approach to language learning is a cognitive language learning theory. The
behavioral language learning theory described above attempts to explain learning based on
observable environmental events in a form of stimulus and response. In contrast, cognitive
learning theories describe learning in terms of internal mental events (Fetsco, 2005). The
best known and most important model within the cognitive or mentalist approach is Gestalt
psychology and previous to the inception of gestalt theory, learning was generally
described as a trial and error process (Houston, 1972). The cognitive approach came as a
critic of the imitation, reinforcement, and repetition processes of learning. Chomsky (1965)
and his fellow mentalists viewed language learning as a result of rule formation and
hypothesis testing. Children were considered to be born with a Language Acquisition
Device (LAD), in which there is a Universal Grammar to test the rules of a language. LAD
is considered as an innate predisposition to induce the rules of the target language, and it is
this that makes children creative or which enables them to construct a set of rules based on
their exposure to the language. Therefore, mentalists object that language is a set of habit
formation; they argue that language is the process of mind, so they object to the view that
the learner is passive. Also, to say that LAD helps a child to learn any language as
mentalists argue is over-simplification, because some languages are different and also, one
can ask, how come children acquire languages at different paces if they have LAD that is
innate? Despite the shortcomings of the cognitive approach, it has implications in

-612-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

education or language learning. According to mentalists, the learner depends on the

linguistic inputs from the teacher but is an active participant. Errors are grounds on which
learners test their hypothesis (Widdowson, 1983). This is to say, errors are viewed as
underlined processes necessary to the learning process. The grammatical syllabus is a
product of mentalists and is geared to promote the learning of grammar. Thus, instructional
materials are also grammar-oriented and books are all geared to promote grammar.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methods are influenced by several theories
such as Chomsky’s theory to language learning or Mentalists theory/cognitive language
learning theories and social interactionism/social interactionist approach or social
interaction model of Lev Vygotsky. Chomsky (1965) indicates that the structural theories
of language learning which existed at that time could not explain some of the issues that
exist in real communication. That is to say, the model of language teaching and learning
which was used at that time was ineffective in classrooms. Thus, according to mentalists,
language learning is considered to be an innovative process in which the learner is
involved in hypothesis construction, but not, as structuralism or behaviorism would say
that language learning is a product of imitation or habit formation. Structuralists and
behaviorists failed to account for the innovative and creative nature of language use, so
mentalists accounted well for the creative nature of language use. In brief, the scope of the
CLT had expanded around the mid-1970s, and it is now seen to be an approach rather than
just a method (see Canale & Swain, 1980).
Today, CLT is the most re-emphasized and the most accepted modern approach of
language teaching which focuses on teaching language as communication as distinct from
teaching language through repetition and memorisation of grammatical patterns. CLT
makes communicative competence the goal of any language teaching classroom. That is to
say, the focus of language teaching under CLT is for learners to develop communicative
competence through interaction. Also, proponents of CLT (Allen & Widdowson, 1974;
Hymes, 1979; Canale & Swain1980; Bachman & Palmer, 1996) emphasize that
communicative competence in a language is best attained through interaction. Thus, CLT
as an approach emphasizes using authentic language in the real context, and this is best
attained when there is enough room for interaction. Therefore, CLT is essentially learner-
centred, so it uses techniques such as role-play, simulation, drama, storytelling, group
activities, dialogue, authentic materials, and conversation to meet the learners’
communicative needs.
Social cognitive language learning theory
The third language learning theory is the social cognitive language learning theory. This
describes the idea of Albert Bandura that learning is the process of transforming
information from the environment into mental representations that guide behaviour. The
assumption made by Bandura (1986) and others is what is the nature of the relationship
between the learner and the environment? What personal and social factors affect the
nature of the learning process? Thus, the social cognitivists view learning as an interplay of
environmental factors and cognition; an individual converts information from the
environment into mental representation.
Humanistic approach to language learning
There is also a humanistic approach to language learning. This approach is highly
influenced by existential ideas such as the importance of personal meaning emerging from
a person’s unique experience. The focus of the humanistic approach is on discovering and
uncovering the meaning of people’s experience; for humanists’ language learning is
communicative. Community Language Learning Method (CLLM) is one of the language

-613-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

teaching and learning method that is based on a humanistic approach. The method was
developed by the American psychologist Charles Curran. CLLM is based on the
counselling learning theory to teaching language. Under CLLM, language is learnt in a
classroom as if it is naturally learnt in normal community settings (Curran, 1972). Curran
says that the role of a teacher, in CLLM, is a counsellor, who is the knower, and the role of
students is that of ‘clients, who are the learners. The method is based on a humanistic
approach to language learning so it encourages students to sit in a circle and use their
feelings, intellect, relationships, and reactions to make learning effective.
To sum up, the section has discussed different approaches or theories used in language
teaching together with the methods, which are based on those theories. It is noted that each
of the discussed approaches has strengths and weaknesses. Based on this, there can be no
approach that can be considered to be extremely bad or good, but we can have an approach
or method whose strengths outweigh its weaknesses. Therefore, there are many approaches
which are used in language teaching, which also result in having so many teaching
methods, so it is not easy to tell which is the best method because each has strengths and
weaknesses. Currently in Tanzania, and in many developed nations, many scholars
advocate the use of CLT methods as the best in language teaching. However, it seems CLT
applicability is effective in a context of the low-class size and where students are proficient
in the Language of Instruction (LoI). In the Tanzanian context, where currently many
classes, in schools and colleges, are of high-class size, and where many students still
struggle with English, the LoI, the effectiveness in the applicability of CLT may still seem
to be questionable.

Teaching Language Effectively

The last part, of the questions under discussion, is the question which asks how language
particularly a second language can be taught effectively. Stern (1983) defines language
teaching as a pursuit to bring about language learning, and he further says that since
language teaching is defined as an activity intended to bring about learning, thus a theory
of language teaching always suggests concepts of language learning. In this regard, success
in a language teaching and learning process is an interplay of several factors ranging from
the student, the methods of teaching, the facilitator, and the learning environment. Some
language experts like Newmark (1964) tended to favour a natural teaching method in
which language is learnt as a whole, in a meaningful social context, with little or no focus
on the formal properties of language (in Allen & Widdowson, 1974). Newmark presents
this view when he claims that paying a focus on the grammatical forms of utterances or
language is not a necessary condition or a sufficient one for effective language teaching.
Therefore, to have effectiveness in language teaching and learning, Newmark emphasizes
teaching particularly, utterances in contexts; this provides meaning and usability to
learners. However, this is a linear way of looking at teaching. Newmark has not considered
the possibility of combining the teaching in context with the systematic presentation of
formal grammatical relations.
It is also, significant when teaching to allow students to apply the knowledge of L1 to
L2 learning. This will help L2 to be taught effectively. Some linguists like Jakobovits
(1968) believe that concepts established in L1 can help in learning L2 or acquisition. They
can be carried over, without modification into the domains of L2 learning. This process of
carrying over aspects of L1 to L2 helps to make the lesson effective only when L1 and L2
appear to be much similar and if they are not students will produce many errors because of
interference of which according to Corder (1967) too many mistakes on the part of the
students tend to have a detrimental effect. However, not all scholars view L1 to be

-614-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

important in learning L2. Grammar Translation Method (GTM), for example, is one of the
oldest teaching methods used in the 17th and 19th centuries. GTM was very prescriptive,
and it helped students to read and appreciate FL literature through translating vocabulary
and grammar to their native language (Anasiudu, 2002). This is to say, in grammar-
translation classes, L2 learners learn grammatical rules and then use the rules to help them
learn L2 by translating sentences between the L2 and the L1. Thus, under the GTM, a
student’s L1 is maintained as an important reference in the learning of an L2. On the
contrary, on a Direct Method (DM) or the Natural Method, which rose due to the
weaknesses of the GTM, students’ languages were banned, and everything was to be done
through the target language. This is to say, to the proponents of DM translating the target
language (L2) to L1, a learner’s native language is considered a hindrance in L2 learning
and therefore forbidden.
Today, technology has grown tremendously. This growth has also influenced the
teaching and learning process. Teachers for many years have used computers and laptops
with the internet as the fastest way to share information or reading sources with their
students. Today, smartphones, tablets, and other technological items or Modern Mobile
Technologies (MMT) such as WhatsApp, YouTube, Facebook, and Google engine are
commonly used in the classrooms in some countries to facilitate a teaching and learning
process (Blankenship, 2011; Mwakapina et al., 2016). In Nigeria, for example, Eke et al.
(2014) report that almost all students are using the Social Networking Sites (SNSs) or
MMTs in interaction with friends, for online study, discussing serious national issues, and
watching movies. Today, many language teachers, their teaching of language embraces the
use of mobile technologies, since the technologies allow students to collaborate with others
or increase students’ interaction. The technologies have been proved by several studies
such as McBride (2009), Rambe (2011), Mc Dermott (2013), Mwakapina et al. (2016),
Faryadi (2017), and Lahiry et al.(2019) to be effective at influencing language learning and
performance. Therefore, using SNSs/MMTs particularly in language teaching, in schools
and colleges, in this era of COVID- 19, will help not only in increasing students’
collaboration and engagement or interaction but also in protecting ourselves against the
spread of the pandemic, which all are important factors in making a teaching and learning
process effective.
Lastly, language can be taught communicatively when learners are engaged in
interactions (Hymes, 1979 & Canale together with Swain, 1980) or by considering
linguistic competence and performance (Chomsky, 1965). On the issue of linguistic
competence and performance, Chomsky emphasizes on the knowledge of the language and
realisation of it in the teaching process respectively. Chomsky (2006) argues that when we
say a person has acquired rules of a language, it means that she/he has internalised the
rules (transformation grammar rules) and makes use of them when he/she produces the
sentences. Therefore, according to Chomsky, language will be effectively taught if a
teacher emphasizes on both the knowledge of the rules of a language and for this case the
transformational generative grammar rules and the use of language in context, just the
same way in which Allen and Widdowson (1974) argue that learning of a language
involves obtaining the knowledge of the language together with the ability to use that
knowledge in producing appropriate utterances and understanding what is said by other
people.
By and large, the literature indicates several methods and strategies that can be used in
the teaching of language effectively. However, based on this review, it is noted that each of
the discussed methods has strengths and weaknesses. Thus, there can be no method that
can be considered to be extremely bad or good, but we can have a method whose strengths

-615-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

outweigh its weaknesses. Today, CLT is the most advocated and the most accepted
modern approach for language teaching which focuses on teaching language as
communication as distinct from teaching language through repetition and memorisation of
grammatical patterns.

CONCLUSION
To sum up, the paper has attempted to define what language is, has shown the trend in
trying to define language, and has discussed the nature of a language and its theories.
Furthermore, it has explained what is all about language learning and language teaching.
Finally, it has looked at the theories of learning as well as ways on how language can be
taught effectively. Based on the discussion above, I think it is very difficult to define either
language or the nature of language comprehensively in one statement, for it means many
things to different people or different linguists. Also, the review has reflected that the
concept of language teaching is influenced by several factors: by the idea of the nature of
language, particularly on what the teacher thinks language is. That is to say, a teacher who
thinks that a language is a system will use different methods from those which will be used
by a teacher who assumes a language is a substance as well as the one that assumes a
language to be a form or an activity. It is influenced also by differences in language
descriptions which affect what is taught, and by the idea of how the language is learnt.
It can be concluded that teachers as they go to teach, normally conceptualise learning
differently, be it in a language class or any other subject. Based on this, the way a teacher
or an instructor conceptualises learning affects the way she/he teaches particularly on the
methods she/he employs in the teaching. As a result, the employed methods may have
impacts on the way students who are served by such methods learn. Also, to be effective in
teaching requires teachers to use varieties of teaching methods or techniques. Again,
students in learning also are required to apply certain or several strategies. The use of these
students’ strategies as argued by Osman (2013) may be influenced by factors such as
methods of teaching, motivations, students’ learning style, and culture. Thus, it can be said
that if a teacher uses a variety of methods in the teaching process, it sets the students in a
good position to adopt a variety of strategies in the learning process. Therefore, success in
the teaching and learning process of a language entails multiple factors such as how the
teacher views what is language or the nature of language, the teaching methods and
learning strategies used, the learning environment, and the motivations of learning
provided to the learners, to mention a few.

REFERENCES
Allen, J. P.B & Corder, P.S. (1974). Techniques in Applied Linguistics: Language and
Language Learning(vol.3) : Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allen, J. P., & Widdowson, H. G. (1974). Teaching the Communicative Use of English.
IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 12(1), pp.1–
21. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1974.12.1-4.1
Allen, J.P.B and Corder, P.S. (1975). Papers in Applied Linguistics (vol.2). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Anasiudu, B. N. (2001). From Formalism to Functionalism: New goals. New Approach. In
Nsukka Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 2(1), pp. 2-10
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Blankenship, M. (2011). How Social Media can and should Impact Higher Education.
Education Digest, 76 (7), pp. 39-42.
-616-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

Bloomfield, L.(1970). Linguistics as a Science. In: Hockett C.F, editor. A Leonard Bloom
field anthology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis as a
Practice and Scholarship Tool. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of
Evidence-Based Management: Companies, Classrooms and Research. Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763986.013.0007
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to
Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, pp. 1-47.
Cassirer E. (1944). An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture.
Yale & New Haven.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The Significance of Learners’ Errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-
4.161
Curran, C. A. (1972). Counseling Learning: A Whole Person Model for Education. New
York, NY: Grune and Stratton.Claxton, C., and Murrell, P. (1988). Learning Styles.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/
content_storage.../d2.pdf, on March 13, 2019.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). The Architecture of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind,(3rd ed.). Newyork: Cambridge University Press
Eke, H. N., Omekwu, C.O., & Odoh, J. N. (2014). The Use of Social Networking Sites
among the Undergraduate Students of University of Nigeria, Nsukka". Library
Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 1195. Retrieved on September 11, 2020.from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1195,
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Malden: Blackwell Publishing
Faryadi, Q. (2017). Effectiveness of Facebook in English Language Learning: A Case
Study. Open Access Library Journal, 4, pp. 1-11.
Fesco,T.(2005). Education Psychology: An Integrated Approach to Classroom Decision.
NewYork: Pearson
Gill, K. A, & Kusum, D. (2017). Teaching Approaches, Methods and Strategy. Scholarly
Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 4(36), pp. 6692- 6697.
Hallinger, P. (2013). A Conceptual Framework for Systematic Reviews of Research in
Educational Leadership and Management. Journal of Educational Administration,
51(2), 126-149. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304670
Hoang, P. N. (2020). Teaching Language in Cross-Disciplinary Contexts. Randwick
International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal, 1(1), 36-43.
https://doi.org/10.47175/rielsj.v1i1.27
Houston, H.S. (1972). A Survey of Psycholinguistics. Mouton: The Hague
Hymes, D. (1979). On Communicative Competence. In C. Brumfit, and K. Johnson (eds).
The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jakobovits, L. A. (1968). Implications of Recent Psycholinguistic Developments for the
Teaching of a Second Language. Paper delivered to The 1968 TESOL Convention in
San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved from https:// /doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1987.tb00392.x.
Kay, P. & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? American
Anthropologist, 86, 65-79.
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., & Kleijnen, J. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96, 118-121.

-617-
 Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal
ISSN Online: 2723-2433 ISSN Print: 2723-2441
Job W. Mwakapina

Lahiry, S., Choudhury, S., Chatterjee, S & Hazra, A. (2019). Impact of Social Media on
Academic Performance and Interpersonal Relation: A Cross sectional Study among
Students at a Tertiary Medical Center in East India. Journal of Education and Health
Promotion, 8, pp.73.
Lyons J. (1981). Language and Linguistics: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, W.F & Francis, W.(1966). Language Teaching and Analysis. Bristol: Western
Printing Service Ltd.
Merriam-Webster. (2016). Webster's American English Dictionary, Expanded Edition,
Newest Edition Paperback. New York: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Moravcsik, J. M. F. (1975). Understanding Language. Mounton: The Hague
McBride, K. (2009). Social Networking Sites in Foreign Language Classes: Opportunities
for Re-creation’, in L. Lomicka, and G. Lord, (eds.). The Next Generation: Social
Networking and Online Collaboration in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 35–58). San
Marcos, TX: CALICO
Mc Dermott, G. (2013). The Role of Social Media in Foreign Language Teaching: A Case
Study for French. Retrieved on 23rd December, 2018 from
https://apliut.revues.org/4234,
Mwakapina, J. W., Mhanden, A. S. & Nyinondi, O. S. (2016). WhatsApp Mobile Tool in
Second Language Learning: Opportunities, Potentials and Challenges in Higher
Education Settings in Tanzania. Journal of English language Education, 4(2) 70 -90.
Mwakapina, J.W. (2020). Efficacy of Communication Skills Teaching Methods and
Learning Strategies: Enhancing Tertiary Students’ Communicative Competence in
Tanzania, Journal of Linguistics and Language in Education, 14(2), 38 -61
Nordquist, R. (2019). The Principle of Least Effort: Definition and Examples of a Zipf’s
Law. Retrieved on October 20, 2021 from https://www.thoughtco.com/principle-of-
least-effort-zipfs-law-1691104
O’Grady, W: Dobrovosky & Katamba, F.(eds). (1978). Contemporary Linguistics: An
introduction. Torronto: Copp Clark Pitman
Osman, O. H. (2013). The Impact of Teaching Methods on Language Learning Strategies
Employed by Learners in a Foreign Language Context. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.
Oman:De Montfort University.
Rambe, P. (2011). Exploring the Impacts of Social Networking Sites on Academic
Relations in the University. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, pp. 272 -
293
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robins, R. H. (1985). A Short History of Linguistics, 2nd edn. London: Longman
Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Spir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (rev.ed). Cambridge,MA: Harvard University
Press
Wardhaugh, R. (1972). Introduction to Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

-618-

View publication stats