Noam Chomsky vs. Michael Tomasello
By Elena Urrutia Sánchez
Perhaps one of the most relevant proposals for the theories of language acquisition in the 70’s was the Generative Grammar by cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky, one of the fathers of modern linguistics. His theory posits that every child is born with "an innate set of linguistic principles shared by all humans" known as “universal grammar”, a capacity to acquire language by means of an innate language acquisition device (LAD) possessed by every language user –which would explain why children acquire language in such a short time. Chomsky “proves” this after having observed that human babies and animals respond to language and 'reason’ to some extent, and that only humans could eventually get to actually produce and analyze language, as opposed to the poor stimulus they obtained from outside, because the LAD is unique to our species. Without being an expert, I could say through my experience that I agree to some extent with Chomsky in the fact that some people seem to have been born with a natural ability for learning languages (a foreign language as is my case), while other people seem to be destined to fail despite of how much effort their parents, teachers, tutors, and themselves put into the ‘simple’ task of speaking English –which in their case seems to have gargantuan proportions.
Chomsky’s innatism challenged the main proposals of Skinnerian’s Behaviorism as he introduced his book Syntactic Structures (1957), and through his critique to Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1957) because ‘a theory restricting the external conditions of learning cannot account for generative grammar’ (Chomsky, 1957). He introduced the transformational grammar, according to which any speaker learning a language (with normal physical conditions) can interpret and produce an infinite number of coherent utterances, with a finite number of grammatical rules. He also referred to the differences among languages as parameters, like the fact that the subject must always be explicit in English –unlike the Spanish word “llegaron”, for instance. Such parameters must be learned by children based on observation as they are exposed to language, along with lexicon and grammar. As to these points, one would have to be blind not to notice that the behaviorist mere stimulus-response education does not cut the current needs in EFL teaching, but from more than a decade teaching English I would dare to say that I have witnessed infants grasping the basics of a language within seconds, and activating infinite patterns the next minute. Whether it be thanks to a natural device is up to the linguists and psychologists to determine, but it seems probable to me that a combination of our LEDs and the exposure to our surroundings makes us able to become competent, creative speakers of a language, comprising an Emergentist theory that combines biological features and creative aspects of language with language interaction (nature and nurture).
Subject to constant controversy, Chomsky’s theories have been criticized by many studies, like that of Daniel Everett (2005), according to which there is a community in Brazil called “Pirahã” where people communicate by means of “everyday channels” (humming, yelling, and whistling), without resorting to the Chomskian property of recursion, one of the basic elements for generative grammar to be possible. Everett argues that these capacities to communicate are bio-neurological rather than naturally acquired. Moreover, according to The Grammar of Identity by Stephen Clingham (2009), the members of that Brazilian community may have a limited language, but they navigate pretty effectively in their environment, “just as cab drivers in London perform poorly in English but manage to drive around without a city map” -by using their hippocampus brain functions(Clingham, 2009). This is only one of the many studies that have opposed Chomskian theories.
Another critic of Chomsky’s ideas is Michael Tomasello, who has dedicated a great deal of time to conduct research on child language acquisition, cognitive linguistics, and social learning in human and primates. He is against the idea of generative grammar, arguing that instead of a universal grammar there exists a usage-based theory, advocating for an emergentist view of language acquisition that deals with cognitive processes and brain functions. He focuses on how language is acquired by children, not by a universal grammar but by human cognition universals and vocal-auditory processing.
In his Constructing a Language (2003) he posits that two sets of cognitive skills result from biological/phylogenetic adaptations: intention reading (pragmatics) and pattern finding (biology and phonetics). I agree with the first one in the sense that I have observed pre-linguistic infants paying close attention to the events around them, imitating, and struggling to understand people’s intentions until they are able to replicate some of the behaviors they see. Tomasello argues that this skill is due to social-cognitive dexterity. What I have not witnessed is an instance in which children analyze auditory speech and recognize patterns to create their own categories, classifying pieces of knowledge from the first utterance to complex clauses, but I cannot prove otherwise.
Tomasello points out that children, unlike primates or other species, attempt to understand the people around them the moment they interact socially with them, key point in the acquisition of language. In fact, it is through intention-reading and attentional development that children obtain the patterns they need to make references and make their own constructions of knowledge, and they continue to do so over a period of time as they acquire more complex structures, which would demonstrate learning their grammar and lexicon through stages, rather than an innate ability to learn. Grammar is then regarded by Tomasello’s usage-based theory as something that derives from language, not as a prerequisite of it.
After having contrasted and compared the theories by both Chomsky and Tomasello, I could say that I still believe, from my experience as a learner, that individuals learn mainly from the context (their caretakers, parents, friends, teachers, and the linguistic situation) as Emergentism speculates, more than by a natural device they are born with, and which suddenly brings a set of binary parameters of a language. In the same way, I agree with Brunner’s precept that children are indeed supported by their families in the building of their language, but beyond that, by the ‘wall’ that the interaction with the world provides them with. On the other hand, I disagree with the generativist view of LADs allowing children to get the basic grammar of their first language because I have always believed that it is through imitation that many linguistic patterns are acquired and then produced by children.
As to EFL (English as a Foreign Language), theories about the best methodology to teach abound, but I have seen students get to master English only after many years of conscious practice, as Stern (1970) affirms, and I have seen how students go from listening and speaking to the more advanced skills of language: reading and writing.
Furthermore, I believe that students obtain pieces of a whole little by little (as in Krashen’s Natural Order), reason why every English program I have taught with has had a well-planned pacing, and has been designed to cover from the most basic to the most advanced topics and functions of language in order to produce students who are “better equipped for success” (Krashen, 1987). Notwithstanding the process every person must undergo when learning a new language, I reassure my beliefs about the importance of input from the outside when we deal with adult education. After all, Margaret Tucker’s idea of “critical period” –not that she was the first one to bring it up- is left behind as years go by when we teach adults, and it is no secret that the older people get, the more difficult it is for them to adapt to new patterns and linguistic structures, aiming to break the barrier of ‘language ego’ (Guiora et al. 1972).
As a professional educator, and thanks to the fact that I am receiving constant professional development sessions through ELT’s and seminars, apart from my Master’s studies, I have learned that I must be aware of how theories about language acquisition change with every decade. I clearly recall having been told by my university professors that Chomsky’s ideas were and would probably always be the most accepted pillars of language learning worldwide. Just some years later, I have discovered the fragility of almost any theory of education, perhaps because it is a never ending process, but also because fortunately, as the world becomes a smaller place because of the internet, more and more people in the world are researching, looking for ways to expand their horizons, and those ideas we thought of as ultimate truths, might be reevaluated by the thinkers of the future: us.
References:
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Websites:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003175.html
http://books.google.com.co/books?id=kycHqdCbVwcC&pg=PA20&dq=Daniel+L.+Everett,+%22Cultural+Constraints+in+Grammar+and+Cognition+in+Pirah%C3%A3&hl=es&ei=0khYTIafIoP68AaX1JH1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Daniel%20L.%20Everett%2C%20%22Cultural%20Constraints%20in%20Grammar%20and%20Cognition%20in%20Pirah%C3%A3&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition
www.serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/.../mtucker.html
www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html
viernes, 10 de septiembre de 2010
Final Reflections
1.In what ways can neuroscience help you as an ELT teacher?
NEUROSCIENCE: “USE IT OR LOSE IT”
Teaching English is a constant challenge which leads us to wonder what surprises we will encounter ever time we enter the classroom. We ask ourselves what is in the students’ minds whenever our expectations do not meet the students’ response. It seems to be a consensus that Neuroscience has the answer to our inquiry due to its applicability to language instruction in both regular classes and those in which we get learners with physical disabilities. Neuroscience helps us train ourselves to do things in new ways (like with PEG exercises), and become more confident to teach the same routines and learning strategies to others, especially when teaching a foreign language. The brain can be not only trained, but also stimulated (and over stimulated) through the senses, no matter the students’ age or level of English. Why not create learning activities in which students get to see, smell, taste, touch, and talk? These and other ritualized scenarios can improve students’ retention.
It would be naïve to think that the brain is not connected to learning, and to our ultimate goal: acquisition or that teaching only happens in the classroom. Students’ physical constraints brain functions, hormones, nervous system, emotions, and affective filter, are all connected to the way students learn, and every individual is different. How can we deal with so many variables? Neuroscience provides us with a tool to professionalize our work, understand how students actually learn, and modify the teaching strategies we have always used (the input of Neuroscience to teaching). Researchers mention the fact that our brain can change, and the way I see it is like training a muscle: the more you exercise it, the more it will remember the routine. Just as people say: “Use it or lose it”
2.Accelerated language instruction is based on 8 main components. Why is it important to try and touch on all of them in class?
Accelerated learning has proven successful given its practical nature. He refers to it as the different techniques, methodologies, and approaches to language teaching. Making use of each and evey one of them in our classes will assure a better learning environment for our students. Anderson has identified the following eight components:
1. Learning environment: room color, furniture, temperature, background music, smell, and textures, and decoration. Through the use of senses, students’ perception will be awakened, and their retention will take concepts to the long-term memory.
2. The state setting: the mood/atmosphere the teacher wishes to create, and even unpredictability. In a nice setting, students get the willingness the y need to start accepting the new information that their brains will learn more smoothly, and fears associated to language learning will start to disappear, especially when teaching older adults.
3. Mnemonics: memory creative techniques when first introducing a new topic, like by having fun, relaxing, and allowing a free-flowing learning environment. Before students face grammatical structures in a second language, it is advisable to bombard students with techniques to acquire hundreds of words so that at the moment of producing more complex sentences beyond the basic survival level, they can feel more confident.
4. Over-stimulation: (like Brunner’s ritualized scenario) reinforcement, repetition, bombarding, and taking into account students’ interests (people can assimilate usually more than 80% info than we assume). We must not teach for the moment but for their lives, and if we provide them with the opportunity to find new concepts in different contexts, they will retain more.
5. Pattern-spotting and learning in broad strokes: learning a lot in a little time, over generalizing rules effectively and gaining confidence. This process requires the teacher’s guidance at the beginning levels. Once students learn how to differentiate L1 and L2 patterns, they will be able to do so on their own.
6. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence: planning class activities that activate other types of intelligences, rather than the only ones that seem dominant in a student (practical application: games, colors, textures, realia).
7. Use of chunking: teaching should not be like a black hole of information in which everything collapses, but information should be broken into pieces or chunks so that students understand and retain information better.
8. Objective setting: when students know the objectives of what they will learn, which leads to a higher sense of achievement (practical application: writing the teacher’s objectives on the board).
3.Anderson´s ACT-R concept proposes modularization and buffering of learning. How can this be applied in ELT?
Anderson began to study language from a neuroscientific and cognitive perspective. His biggest contribution to the field of Language teaching is his Act Theory of Cognition, which states that learning takes place in modules or “ACT’s” (Adaptive Control of Thought).
He also distinguishes three types of memory: the short-time memory structures: the declarative one (semantic nets, propositions, images, and images), the procedural one (inferences from background information and factual knowledge), and the working memory, which is higly activated at the moment of events.
Through stimuli, teachers can attemtp to send newly taught material to the students’ short-term memory (which stores information for less than a minute), and from there to their long-term memory (which lasts days, months or even years). I believe that this is really possible by planning lcasses that are unforgettable to students; classes that require their logical thinking, their transfer of information, and the use of their senses.
As to English language teaching, the ACT’s theory is applicable at many levels. For instance, at the moment of introducing very basic vocabulary and functional phrases in elementary levels, the teacher must provide students with enough lexical input so that they can achieve their goals little by little. It is only through practice that students will get the mastery of a little chunk of language, followed by another, and repeating this process incessantly. A teacher can foster the Anderson’s theory by helping students make the right lexical and structural generalizations from class topics, discriminate what makes some aspects of L1 different from L2 (and rely on the commonalities), share class aims with students and even negotiate some with them so they feel engaged, and always bring variety to the classroom. If taught in chunks, students will be more likely to succeed, and fewer clients will drop off from our classes.
4.Chomsky, Brunner, Krashen, Anderson, Macnamara: What contributions from these authors will you follow as an English teacher?
NOTE: due to time constraints, I will mention the ones every author posed, and I will underline the ones I mostly agree with (most have been already explained in my blog)
Chomsky: Innatism, generative grammar, and universals. According to him, language acquisition began when we started using Infinite numerical computational skills (when humans began to count), skills (rules), and parameters (options). THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTION BY CHOMSKY: computational skills. I agree with the recursiveness we acquire, and I think that through constant practice, we can train our students to do the same in L2.
Brunner: “LASS” (Language Acquisition Support System). I can say that every LAD needs his LASS because we should have a natural disposition (we are biologically capable to produce lang), but interaction with the family is a must -nurture-, and the context helps us learn, apart from the Ritualized scenarios: being passive at first, and active if the situation is emotionally charged in context. According to Brunner, interaction and reinforcement are a must when teaching languages, and I totally agree with him because context reinforces the concepts students learn.
Krashen: his theory of L2 acquisition does not have to do with learning rules and structures, but with meaningful interaction in context, and it is based on ...
- Acquisition-learning hypothesis: there are two systems of language performance... the aqcuired one (through meaningful/ natural communication - subconscious process) and the learned one (through error correction, explicit instruction – formal conscious process).
- Monitor hypothesis: once the conditions of time, form, and rule are clear to students, they can monitor and edit their sentences, correct their mistakes, and plan how not to make the same mistakes again. I believe that as studetns reach a higher level of English, they are able to monitor themselves more and more effectively.
- Natural order hypothesis: there is a natural order for learning an L2 language that differs form L1 order. Students are taught by stages just the way we teach verb tenses at schools as their level of difficulty increases: To Be, Present progressive, simple present, simple past, future, and so on. However, Krashen rejects grammatical sequencing because the goal is language acquisition.
- Input hypothesis: L+1. Giving students a little difficulty instruction a bit above the average level of the class, will benefit their learning of a second language.
- Affective filter: how a student feels about himself and his class will affect his learning in a positive or negative way. This is one of my biggest goals this year: motivation in class.
Anderson –and other theorists- conceived the ACT-R (Adaptive control of thought), which has to do with computational skills. He developed a cognitive architecture not only to explain how people remember and manage cognition, but also to recreate it on computation. ACT-R implies knowledge:
He introduces chunks, which are inside modules, which are accessible only through Buffers –specialized and independent brain structures at the front and the end of modules. If the buffers don’t work, we can’t continue learning. The modules produce cognition. When cognitive tasks are given –like picture object- and language starts to evolve. With modules we can see step by step simulation for human behavior.
Mc Namara: No need for LAD because we make sense of the input. He talked about the ability people have for intention-reading and for understanding that intonation has a connection with what a person really means beyond words (like Tomasello). I agree with this theory and it is something that I always emphasize in my classes with advanced students because after they master the language in a pretty acceptable way, they can enjoy the richness of pragmatics and intentiosn in verbal and written texts.
5.In what ways has this course inspired you to innovate on your professional practice?
The most important contribution of this class was something that I will never forget: memory! The way mnemonic techniques were introduced to us made tasks seem fruitful only after a trial and error process. I started using the techniques immediately with my students, and I will keep observing the results form the mini experiments I have started to carry out. After all, mnemonics is one of the main topics of my research project.
The second contribution has been the intensive reinforcement of theories by a veriety of authors. Not only through presentations, but also through lots of visual aids, I finally feel that I have consolidated all those dusty concepts that had been resting in my head since I graduated from my university more than a decade ago. This course allowed me to refresh some ideas and to see the application of updated ICT’s that I had not even though of. I saw the application of every single concept to my own classes, and this is too much to say as a professional. It is more that what I usually got in other classes. I have even felt motivated to start working with music in my class (classical music) and I will soon be investigating how alpha waves work. Now I know that this process with memory and other methodologies should not stop. As I said after my first weekend in this module: it was all worth it.
NEUROSCIENCE: “USE IT OR LOSE IT”
Teaching English is a constant challenge which leads us to wonder what surprises we will encounter ever time we enter the classroom. We ask ourselves what is in the students’ minds whenever our expectations do not meet the students’ response. It seems to be a consensus that Neuroscience has the answer to our inquiry due to its applicability to language instruction in both regular classes and those in which we get learners with physical disabilities. Neuroscience helps us train ourselves to do things in new ways (like with PEG exercises), and become more confident to teach the same routines and learning strategies to others, especially when teaching a foreign language. The brain can be not only trained, but also stimulated (and over stimulated) through the senses, no matter the students’ age or level of English. Why not create learning activities in which students get to see, smell, taste, touch, and talk? These and other ritualized scenarios can improve students’ retention.
It would be naïve to think that the brain is not connected to learning, and to our ultimate goal: acquisition or that teaching only happens in the classroom. Students’ physical constraints brain functions, hormones, nervous system, emotions, and affective filter, are all connected to the way students learn, and every individual is different. How can we deal with so many variables? Neuroscience provides us with a tool to professionalize our work, understand how students actually learn, and modify the teaching strategies we have always used (the input of Neuroscience to teaching). Researchers mention the fact that our brain can change, and the way I see it is like training a muscle: the more you exercise it, the more it will remember the routine. Just as people say: “Use it or lose it”
2.Accelerated language instruction is based on 8 main components. Why is it important to try and touch on all of them in class?
Accelerated learning has proven successful given its practical nature. He refers to it as the different techniques, methodologies, and approaches to language teaching. Making use of each and evey one of them in our classes will assure a better learning environment for our students. Anderson has identified the following eight components:
1. Learning environment: room color, furniture, temperature, background music, smell, and textures, and decoration. Through the use of senses, students’ perception will be awakened, and their retention will take concepts to the long-term memory.
2. The state setting: the mood/atmosphere the teacher wishes to create, and even unpredictability. In a nice setting, students get the willingness the y need to start accepting the new information that their brains will learn more smoothly, and fears associated to language learning will start to disappear, especially when teaching older adults.
3. Mnemonics: memory creative techniques when first introducing a new topic, like by having fun, relaxing, and allowing a free-flowing learning environment. Before students face grammatical structures in a second language, it is advisable to bombard students with techniques to acquire hundreds of words so that at the moment of producing more complex sentences beyond the basic survival level, they can feel more confident.
4. Over-stimulation: (like Brunner’s ritualized scenario) reinforcement, repetition, bombarding, and taking into account students’ interests (people can assimilate usually more than 80% info than we assume). We must not teach for the moment but for their lives, and if we provide them with the opportunity to find new concepts in different contexts, they will retain more.
5. Pattern-spotting and learning in broad strokes: learning a lot in a little time, over generalizing rules effectively and gaining confidence. This process requires the teacher’s guidance at the beginning levels. Once students learn how to differentiate L1 and L2 patterns, they will be able to do so on their own.
6. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence: planning class activities that activate other types of intelligences, rather than the only ones that seem dominant in a student (practical application: games, colors, textures, realia).
7. Use of chunking: teaching should not be like a black hole of information in which everything collapses, but information should be broken into pieces or chunks so that students understand and retain information better.
8. Objective setting: when students know the objectives of what they will learn, which leads to a higher sense of achievement (practical application: writing the teacher’s objectives on the board).
3.Anderson´s ACT-R concept proposes modularization and buffering of learning. How can this be applied in ELT?
Anderson began to study language from a neuroscientific and cognitive perspective. His biggest contribution to the field of Language teaching is his Act Theory of Cognition, which states that learning takes place in modules or “ACT’s” (Adaptive Control of Thought).
He also distinguishes three types of memory: the short-time memory structures: the declarative one (semantic nets, propositions, images, and images), the procedural one (inferences from background information and factual knowledge), and the working memory, which is higly activated at the moment of events.
Through stimuli, teachers can attemtp to send newly taught material to the students’ short-term memory (which stores information for less than a minute), and from there to their long-term memory (which lasts days, months or even years). I believe that this is really possible by planning lcasses that are unforgettable to students; classes that require their logical thinking, their transfer of information, and the use of their senses.
As to English language teaching, the ACT’s theory is applicable at many levels. For instance, at the moment of introducing very basic vocabulary and functional phrases in elementary levels, the teacher must provide students with enough lexical input so that they can achieve their goals little by little. It is only through practice that students will get the mastery of a little chunk of language, followed by another, and repeating this process incessantly. A teacher can foster the Anderson’s theory by helping students make the right lexical and structural generalizations from class topics, discriminate what makes some aspects of L1 different from L2 (and rely on the commonalities), share class aims with students and even negotiate some with them so they feel engaged, and always bring variety to the classroom. If taught in chunks, students will be more likely to succeed, and fewer clients will drop off from our classes.
4.Chomsky, Brunner, Krashen, Anderson, Macnamara: What contributions from these authors will you follow as an English teacher?
NOTE: due to time constraints, I will mention the ones every author posed, and I will underline the ones I mostly agree with (most have been already explained in my blog)
Chomsky: Innatism, generative grammar, and universals. According to him, language acquisition began when we started using Infinite numerical computational skills (when humans began to count), skills (rules), and parameters (options). THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTION BY CHOMSKY: computational skills. I agree with the recursiveness we acquire, and I think that through constant practice, we can train our students to do the same in L2.
Brunner: “LASS” (Language Acquisition Support System). I can say that every LAD needs his LASS because we should have a natural disposition (we are biologically capable to produce lang), but interaction with the family is a must -nurture-, and the context helps us learn, apart from the Ritualized scenarios: being passive at first, and active if the situation is emotionally charged in context. According to Brunner, interaction and reinforcement are a must when teaching languages, and I totally agree with him because context reinforces the concepts students learn.
Krashen: his theory of L2 acquisition does not have to do with learning rules and structures, but with meaningful interaction in context, and it is based on ...
- Acquisition-learning hypothesis: there are two systems of language performance... the aqcuired one (through meaningful/ natural communication - subconscious process) and the learned one (through error correction, explicit instruction – formal conscious process).
- Monitor hypothesis: once the conditions of time, form, and rule are clear to students, they can monitor and edit their sentences, correct their mistakes, and plan how not to make the same mistakes again. I believe that as studetns reach a higher level of English, they are able to monitor themselves more and more effectively.
- Natural order hypothesis: there is a natural order for learning an L2 language that differs form L1 order. Students are taught by stages just the way we teach verb tenses at schools as their level of difficulty increases: To Be, Present progressive, simple present, simple past, future, and so on. However, Krashen rejects grammatical sequencing because the goal is language acquisition.
- Input hypothesis: L+1. Giving students a little difficulty instruction a bit above the average level of the class, will benefit their learning of a second language.
- Affective filter: how a student feels about himself and his class will affect his learning in a positive or negative way. This is one of my biggest goals this year: motivation in class.
Anderson –and other theorists- conceived the ACT-R (Adaptive control of thought), which has to do with computational skills. He developed a cognitive architecture not only to explain how people remember and manage cognition, but also to recreate it on computation. ACT-R implies knowledge:
He introduces chunks, which are inside modules, which are accessible only through Buffers –specialized and independent brain structures at the front and the end of modules. If the buffers don’t work, we can’t continue learning. The modules produce cognition. When cognitive tasks are given –like picture object- and language starts to evolve. With modules we can see step by step simulation for human behavior.
Mc Namara: No need for LAD because we make sense of the input. He talked about the ability people have for intention-reading and for understanding that intonation has a connection with what a person really means beyond words (like Tomasello). I agree with this theory and it is something that I always emphasize in my classes with advanced students because after they master the language in a pretty acceptable way, they can enjoy the richness of pragmatics and intentiosn in verbal and written texts.
5.In what ways has this course inspired you to innovate on your professional practice?
The most important contribution of this class was something that I will never forget: memory! The way mnemonic techniques were introduced to us made tasks seem fruitful only after a trial and error process. I started using the techniques immediately with my students, and I will keep observing the results form the mini experiments I have started to carry out. After all, mnemonics is one of the main topics of my research project.
The second contribution has been the intensive reinforcement of theories by a veriety of authors. Not only through presentations, but also through lots of visual aids, I finally feel that I have consolidated all those dusty concepts that had been resting in my head since I graduated from my university more than a decade ago. This course allowed me to refresh some ideas and to see the application of updated ICT’s that I had not even though of. I saw the application of every single concept to my own classes, and this is too much to say as a professional. It is more that what I usually got in other classes. I have even felt motivated to start working with music in my class (classical music) and I will soon be investigating how alpha waves work. Now I know that this process with memory and other methodologies should not stop. As I said after my first weekend in this module: it was all worth it.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)