Master's Degree ​in ​Advanced​ ​English​ ​Studies

The Acquisition of English and Intercultural Communication

Faculty of Arts and Humanities
Department of English and German

Essay

Is there any relationship between explicit and implicit L2 knowledge? How do the
two types of knowledge relate to language teaching?

Supervisor’s name: ​Elisabet Pladevall Ballester

Student’s name: ​Aleksandra Belousova
 Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Implicit knowledge

3. Explicit knowledge

4. Relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge

5. How implicit and explicit knowledge relate to language teaching

6. Conclusion

7. References
1. Introduction

Explicit and implicit knowledge as well as the dissociation between them have been drawing

researchers’ attention for several decades. Some early studies (Reber, 1976) revealed different

styles of learning, where acquisition was determined by a critical feature such as consciousness.

Later Reber (1986) claimed that implicit learning, which requires neither attention nor

awareness, leads to tacit knowledge. On the contrary, Schmidt (2001 cited in Esteki, 2014) stated

that “people learn about the things they attend to and do not learn much about things they do not

attend to.” This defining distinction between language acquisition and language learning has

been considered by a large number of scholars (e.g. Ellis, Krashen, Schmidt, etc.) and has led to

a concept that the L1 acquisition is implicit, however, Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is a

different matter, which includes both implicit and explicit learning and explicit and implicit

knowledge (Esteki, 2014). Learning at this point was defined as a “process engaged in learning a

language” and knowledge as “the product of language learning.”(Ellis, 2006)

The focus of the current essay is on implicit and explicit knowledge, which will be considered

more thoroughly in chapters 2 and 3. In terms of their relationship, which was studied by many

scholars (Krashen, 1982; Schmidt, 1990; Ellis, 2017, etc.), there is robust evidence of mutual

interface, whether it is weak or strong, despite the existence of non-interface position, which

rejects the converting mechanism of one type of knowledge into the other. Three interface

positions and justifications for them will be observed in chapter 4. On top of that, “teaching

explicit knowledge of grammar has been and remains today one of the most controversial issues

in teaching grammar” (Ellis, 2006). ​Implicit knowledge is typically manifested in a form of

language behavior such as conversation (Ellis, 2001), hence teaching grammar inductively can
stimulate interaction, raise students’ consciousness and increase speaking time of students in

class. However, this method of teaching is viewed as time and energy-consuming. It has a

significantly positive effect on long-term learning (Haight et al., 2007), but most teaching

contexts have limited time available for teaching grammar. Also, there is ample evidence that

post-test results and grammaticality judgements are better with explicit teaching (Walter, 2015),

whereas the rules given implicitly may lead to incorrect or incomplete inference. In other words,

the deductive method of teaching could be combined with the inductive method in the classroom

EFL context. ​Chapter 5 will be devoted to considering second language teaching with regard to

deductive and inductive approaches.

2. Implicit knowledge

The nature of implicit knowledge, which includes fluency in phonology, reading, spelling, lexis,

morphosyntax, formulaic language, language comprehension, grammaticality, etc. (Ellis, 2017),

requires ongoing studies as the processes are held unconsciously and cannot be verbalized. It is

tacit knowledge, “occasionally acquired, implicitly stored and automatically used” (Ju, 2006

cited in Fengjuan, 2015). As far as L1 is concerned, speakers unconsciously acquire language

specific parameters from implicit input, being able to apply grammar rules to communication

without conscious efforts. Unlike non-interface position (Krashen, 1982 cited in Ellis, 2006),

which assumes that subconscious acquisition dominates in second language performance, and

consciousness may be used to monitor the output, the majority of SLA researchers (Schmidt,

2001; Ellis, 2008) doubt that implicit knowledge contributes as much to language mastery as in
L1 acquisition. It can be explained by an assumption that L2 is received by means of different

mechanisms than L1. Language transfer, individual differences, such as age of learners, may be

possible reasons which hinder the process of SLA. Consequently, in order to make the SLA

process more naturalistic, focus on meaning or message content should be prioritized (Ellis,

2006). It helps learners to decode and encode messages in the context of actual acts of

communication (Long, 1996 cited in Ellis, 2006), to be involved in real communication and be

focused on meaning.

3. Explicit knowledge

Schmidt hypothesized (1990) that conscious cognitive effort is essential to convert input into

intake in SLA. It is known as a noticing hypothesis, which was supported by a weak interface

position (Ellis, 2005), which asserts that the noticing process (i.e. paying attention to specific

linguistic features of the input) could be facilitated by means of explicit knowledge. Declarative

(explicit) knowledge at this stage can be defined as “facts that speakers of language have

learned.”(Ellis, 2006) These facts sometimes contradict each other because they might have been

misunderstood by the learners, however, explicit knowledge is conscious, learnable and

verbalisible, and it is used when speakers encounter problems with SLA. The role of declarative

knowledge in second language acquisition still remains disputable and controversial. The first

and foremost question is whether explicit knowledge is of any value of itself (Ellis, 2006). Some

studies showed (Yuan & Ellis, 2003 cited in Ellis, 2005) that the learners benefited more when

doing grammar tests if they could access explicit knowledge. On the other hand, another study
(Wong, 2004 cited in Ellis, 2006) revealed that there was no significant difference in production

tests between the experimental group that used explicit input and the control group. Ellis (2006)

assumes that declarative knowledge does contribute to the process of formulating messages and

monitoring, although automatisation requires time. In addition, explicit knowledge does not

depend on the age of acquisition (Reber, 1967) as well as there is no correlation between explicit

knowledge and the context where it is received, whether it is second language environment or

foreign language environment (Fengjuan, 2014).

4. ​Relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge

Can explicit knowledge be a step on the way to implicit knowledge? Are they related to each

other or not? The hypothesis, which tries to answer these questions, is known as interface

hypothesis and includes 3 distinct positions. The non-interface position, proposed by Krashen

(1981 cited in Polio & Kessler, 2019), argues that explicit knowledge cannot be converted into

implicit knowledge as they are stored separately in the brain. This argument is supported by the

results of a neurological study (Paradis, 1994 cited in Ellis, 2006) and contradicts the opposite

strong interface position (DeKeyser, 1998 cited in Ellis, 2005) which posits that explicit

knowledge becomes implicit by means of practicing and using declarative linguistic rules and

converting them into implicit. Also, there is the third, weak interface, position (Ellis, 1993),

according to which explicit knowledge may facilitate SLA and develop into implicit knowledge

directly (when learners are prepared to acquire the rule), indirectly (when declarative knowledge

assists the acquisition of implicit knowledge) or “when learners use their explicit knowledge to
produce output that then serves as auto-input to their implicit learning mechanisms.” (Ellis et al,

2009 cited in Esteki, 2014) In other words, declarative knowledge cannot be transformed into

implicit knowledge immediately, however, there are ways how the former may feed into the

latter.

All the positions mentioned above continue to be argued by theorists. There is an overall

impression that explicit instruction is helpful in SLA (Norris & Ortega, 2000 cited in Walter,

2015). However, regardless of a large number of testing instruments, including timed and

untimed grammaticality judgements tests, elicited oral imitation tests and metalinguistic tests,

there are no studies which could directly state that explicit knowledge converts into implicit and

not simply facilitates the process of SLA. Partially, the lack of research evidence can be

explained by the fact that there are no tools for proper measurement of knowledge, which

participants use when doing tests. Irrespective of that fact, Walter assumes (2015) that in case of

form-focused instruction explicit knowledge helps speakers notice and at later stages noticing

can lead to converting explicit knowledge into implicit. One example could be used ​(DeKeyser,

2007 cited in Polio & Kessler, 2019) ​i​n favour of this assumption. He compared a person

learning to drive a car with a person who is learning a foreign language. They both lean on the

crutches of explicit knowledge (can verbalize it) until they can refuse from scaffolding because

of a large amount of practice. This theory clearly shows how declarative knowledge could be

converted into implicit knowledge in a skills-based approach, and it looks plausible.

5. ​How implicit and explicit knowledge relate to language teaching

Consideration of three interface positions mentioned above may be trialed for SL teaching.

Non-interface position, based on Krashen’s hypothesis of comprehensible input, supposes

empirical and analytical approach toward English teaching and may lead to using a lot of L2

input, such as immersion or task-based teaching, without deductive ways of teaching grammar

(Ellis, 2006). This approach was applied by the Canadian immersion studies, however, Krashen’s

hypothesis was categorically falsified by the data received after a 12-year experiment and proved

that comprehensible input was not enough for SLA (Walter, 2015). The strong interface position

sees explicit teaching (e.g. PPP methodology) as a beneficial approach, assuming that learners of

L2 receive grammar rules explicitly and later practice them until declarative knowledge converts

into implicit, and it can be applied for communication (Esteki, 2014). The weak interface

position alternatively suggests moderate use of explicit teaching approach, which allows learners

to attend to grammar rules (Ellis, 2006). However, these techniques create the basement for

consciousness-raising tasks making the input more noticeable and salient. Learners are able to

derive the rules themselves using the input.

Apart from the interface positions, there are a number of other hypotheses, such as Natural Order

Hypothesis (Krashen, 1980) according to which grammatical structures are acquired in a

predetermined, 'natural' order, and some are acquired earlier than others, both in L1 and L2,

regardless of the teaching approach. ​There is some evidence in favour of this, however, the

number of grammar rules which could be taught in a natural order is limited (Walter, 2015).

With respect to the approaches used in SLA, there is one question that still remains controversial.

It is whether explicit knowledge should be taught inductively or deductively. The theory and

research have addressed these two approaches many times, revealing advantages and
disadvantages of both methods, inductive way of teaching ​is often acknowledged as preferable as

the learner is more active in the learning process (Ellis, 2001; Haight et al., 2007). Moreover, a

rule-discovery method is treated as more naturalistic and motivating. On par with this evidence,

learner-centred classes, which imply implicit environment, are promoted by a vast majority of

language schools in an attempt to decrease Teacher Talking Time (TTT), to activate

pattern-cognition and problem-solving abilities of learners (Freeman, 2009). On the other hand, a

number of grammar book writers (Swan, 2002; Murphy, 2015) claim that all grammar units can

be taught in the top-down way successfully. Some studies have also revealed the effectiveness of

teaching grammar deductively. They demonstrate that students prefer to master grammar rules

via a teacher-centred approach due to their personal learning style and/or past learning

experience​. DeKeyser (1995 cited in Ellis, 2005) studied the effects of explicit-deductive and

implicit-inductive methods of instruction and suggested that explicit teaching facilitates the

production of simple categorical rules in new contexts. Green and Hecht (1992 cited in Ellis,

2005) mentioned that the students, who underwent a deductive way of teaching grammar,

demonstrated clear explanations of grammar errors in 86% in comparison with students who

used other methods of input (46%).

The robust evidence proves that the most effective grammar teaching approaches must comprise

both inductive and deductive characteristics (Haight, Heron & Cole, 2007). Inductive teaching is

often seen as advantageous as the learner is more active in the learning process, the deductive

approach is more efficient in a number of grammar aspects (Marcory & Stone, 2000 cited in

Ellis, 2005). The study was carried out with the secondary school students, who demonstrated

good explicit knowledge of Present Perfect tense in a written task and poor oral production. The
researchers assumed that these results could be explained by different methods of instruction

about the rule and class activities.

6. Conclusion

The ​purpose of the present essay was to analyse the concepts of implicit and explicit knowledge

in applied linguistics, to infer the relationship between them and to study the implications of

various theories for L2 teaching.

Both implicit and explicit knowledge are difficult to conceptualize, however, there is a clear

distinction between them. Implicit knowledge can be defined as tacit, procedural and

unconscious and explicit knowledge is conscious, learnable and declarative (Ellis, 2006). They

complement each other in the process of SLA, although the problem of interface between these

two types stays polemical in spite of thorough linguistic research work. Three theoretical models,

which include non-interface, strong interface and weak interface positions, require further

investigation as there is a lack of tools to ascertain “which type of knowledge learners employ

when they perform a language task or test.” (Ellis, 2006) Notwithstanding that fact, there is a

plausible argument made by ​DeKeyser (2007), who posited that declarative knowledge can

convert into tacit as a consequence of language practice.

There is an assumption that explicit knowledge is of great value for SLA (​Schmidt, 1990; ​Yuan

& Ellis, 2003), therefore, the present work addresses how it should be taught, implicitly or

explicitly. On the one hand, inductive teaching, which is attributed to exposure to models of
distinct grammar rules and their metalinguistic generalization, was more effective in a number

of studies ​(Ellis, 2001; Haight et al., 2007)​. Alternatively, deductive teaching, which is attributed

to present-practice-production sequence, was found advantageous in the studies of Green and

Hecht (1992), DeKeyser (1995) and other researchers. Apparently, there is no clear-cut answer

which approach learners benefit most from, as ​there is a difference in the outcome between

inductive and deductive teaching of certain grammar categories (​Marcory & Stone, 2000).

In sum, ​due to a vast diversity of theories in the field of SLA and a number of teaching

approaches, the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge as well as the issue of

explicit knowledge teaching might remain controversial in the near future, attracting theorists

and providing them with new pieces of research evidence.

7.​ ​References

​ etrieved
Ellis, Rod. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. R

January 3, 2020, from

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0272263105050096

Ellis, Rod. (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective.​ ​TESOL

Quarterly​, 40 (1), pp. 83-107.

Ellis, Nick C. (2017). Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In Claudia Finkbeiner &

Joana White (Eds.), ​Language Awareness and Multilingualism: a Historical Overview (pp.

113-124). ​Springer, Cham.

Esteki, Bahareh. (2014). The relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge and second

language proficiency. ​Theory and Practice in Language Studies​ 4 (7): 1520-1525.

Fengjuan, Tian. (2015). The relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge and influence

on language teaching. ​Young Scientist​ 20 (100): ​616-618.

Freeman, Donald. (2009). The scope of second language teacher education. In Annie Burns &

Jack C. Richards (Eds.), ​The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp.11-20).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Haight, Carrie; Herron, Carol & Cole, Steven. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided

inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary language

college classroom.​ Foreign Language Annals​ 40 (2): 288-309.

Polio, Charlene & Kessler, Matt. (2019). Teaching L2 writing: Connecting SLA theory, research

and pedagogy. In Nihat Polat, Tammy Gregersen & Peter D. MacIntyre (Eds.),

Research-Driven Pedagogy: Implications of L2A Theory and Research for the Teaching of

Language Skills (​ pp. 17-28).

Reber, Arthur S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. ​Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General ​118 (3): 219-335.

Swan, Michael. (2002). Seven bad reasons for teaching grammar - and two good ones. In Jack C.

​ ew
Richards & Willy A. Renandya (Eds.), ​Methodology in Language Teaching (pp. 148-152). N

York: Cambridge University Press.

​ etrieved December 21, 2019, from

Walter, Catherine. (2015). ​Teaching grammar inductively. R

http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/attachments/teaching_grammar_inducti

vely2.pdf