I did task 1A which is a topic motivation but I got the feedback from the lecturer and he is not happy with it for some reasons.
he said ((Usually ‘grammar’ (no matter how it is defined) is understood as a part of the (second) language that is being acquired. It isn’t clear to me how ‘grammar’ can affect the process of second language acquisition. There could be particular processes that are influenced by specific grammatical features. Is this what you mean? The example that you attribute to Krashen (2012) distinguishes ‘Romance’ languages [a specific category of languages; ‘romantic’ language is a different categorisation that would contrast with e.g., ‘abusive’ language] from other languages (but not ‘universal’) because in Romance languages (among others) nouns have specific ‘non-natural’ genders, but I don’t see how you are connecting this with ‘grammar change’ or ‘language dynamism’. ‘Universal grammar’ is a particular *theory* of grammar which makes specific claims about what it is that is represented in the human brain, but ‘Universal grammar’ claims to be exactly that ‘universal’ to ALL languages. It may be that your question/topic is something like ‘what would SLA look like from a universal grammar perspective?’ [but you would have to narrow your focus quite considerably to something within Universal Grammar to be able to explore it in a case study.))
So this is the task 1B Literature Review with the updated topic(what would second language acquisition look like from a universal grammar perspective?)
provide a list of ten (10) relevant journal references, at least seven (7) of which have been published after 2000. All journals need volume and issue numbers and also doi.