The debate between the Structuralist and Linguistic approaches to learning a second language can be broken down into two distinct views. The first view, proposed by B.F Skinner’s ‘Structuralism’, suggests that learning a second language is simply a matter of acquiring new habits and rules; this process relies heavily on memorization as repetition leads to reinforcement which develops proficiency in the language (Skinner). On the other hand, Noam Chomsky’s ‘Linguistic’ approach proposes that it is more than just memorizing words or phrases as humans are born with an innate ability to acquire and understand language regardless of their native tongue (Chomsky).

According to the Structuralist perspective, learning a new language simply means repeating patterns until they become habitual behaviors; this could involve reciting conjugations multiple times until they are ingrained in one’s memory or practicing dialogues so conversation flows naturally when trying to communicate with others (Skinner). Essentially, this school of thought believes that if one was exposed consistently enough then eventually they would learn how best to use grammar structures correctly while speaking fluently.

On the contrary, Chomsky argues that people have an inborn capacity for understanding linguistic principles; he claims that knowledge about how our systems of communication work is wired deep within us from birth rather than having been acquired through experience like suggested by Skinner’s model (Chomsky). He further states that although some effort may still be necessary for learners due to differences between languages such as pronunciation or cultural nuances ultimately everyone has access to certain ‘deep structures’ within their minds allowing them to make sense out of any type of utterance quickly without extensive practice or instruction.

Therefore, both theories provide compelling cases concerning how we learn languages but ultimately there remains disagreement over which viewpoint accurately reflects reality. While it appears likely elements from both models do exist concurrently supporting each side I believe more research needs conducted before determining definitively if either view is completely correct.