23-09-2016, 04:40 PM
Implicit Knowledge, Explicit Knowledge, and Achievement in
Second Language (L2) Spanish
[attachment=71594]
Abstract
Implicit and explicit knowledge of the second language (L2) are two central constructs in
the field of second language acquisition (SLA). In recent years, there has been a renewed
interest in obtaining valid and reliable measures of L2 learners‟ implicit and explicit
knowledge (e.g., Bowles, 2011; R. Ellis, 2005). The purpose of the present study was to
examine the nature of the knowledge representations developed by two groups of learners
of Spanish as a L2 at different levels of proficiency. The results show that the two groups
differed with respect to their implicit and explicit knowledge of Spanish and also regarding
the relationship between measures of those representations and the measures of L2
achievement used with each group.
Introduction
Implicit and explicit knowledge of the second language (L2) are two central
constructs in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Implicit knowledge of the L2
is often defined as the intuitive and procedural knowledge that is normally accessed
automatically in fluent performance and that cannot be verbalized. In contrast, explicit
knowledge is understood as the conscious and declarative knowledge of the L2 that is
accessed during controlled processing and that is potentially verbalizable (Bowles, 2011; R.
Ellis, 2005). Research about these two constructs has mainly focused on their role in
language learning and language use, as well as the relationship between these two types of
representations.
Regarding their role in L2 learning and use, there seems to be consensus in that
implicit knowledge is at the core of automated language processing and that the
development of these types of representations is the ultimate goal of L2 acquisition
(Doughty, 2003). On the other hand, there is certain disagreement as to what the role of
explicit knowledge is. Some authors (e.g., Krashen, 1981) attribute a very limited role to
these types of representations; namely, that of a monitor or editor for L2 production under
very specific circumstances. Others (e.g., Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Johns, 2003; Mitchell,
2000) point out that successful performance in uses of language such as writing requires
access to explicit knowledge. R. Ellis (1994) argues that explicit knowledge may play a
facilitative role in L2 acquisition in that it may accelerate the establishment of links
between form and meaning. N.C. Ellis (2005) notes that explicit knowledge of the L2 plays
an important role in linguistic problem-solving: “when automatic capabilities fail, there
follows a call recruiting additional collaborative conscious support” (p. 308).
With respect to the relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge, the debate
revolves around whether they constitute two separate knowledge systems or, on the other
hand, they interact at the representational level and thus one can be converted into the
other. The noninterface position (e.g., Hulstjin, 2002; Krashen, 1981; Paradis, 1994) claims
that these two types of knowledge constitute two different systems with different
processing mechanisms and, as such, neither implicit knowledge can become explicit nor
explicit knowledge can be converted into implicit. Conversely, according to the strong
interface position (e.g., DeKeyser, 1998, 2003) explicit knowledge can become implicit and
vice versa. Finally, there are different versions of a weak interface position, which claims
that explicit knowledge can become implicit under certain conditions1
. Irrespective of their
relationship at the representational level, implicit and explicit knowledge do interact at the
performance level, since L2 learners often resort to both types of representations in L2
production (N.C. Ellis, 2005).
It is widely accepted that the development of implicit knowledge is central to the
development of L2 proficiency. However, as noted above, it is not clear how explicit
knowledge contributes to the acquisition of the L2. Indeed, there are plenty of studies that
have examined the relationship between explicit knowledge and L2 proficiency
operationalized in different ways. For example, Alderson, Clapham, and Steel (1997) only
found low correlations between different measures of explicit knowledge and measures of
L2 proficiency in French. In a study about learners of Italian as an L2, Sorace (1985) found
that learners with higher levels of explicit knowledge performed better in two oral
Second Language (L2) Spanish
[attachment=71594]
Abstract
Implicit and explicit knowledge of the second language (L2) are two central constructs in
the field of second language acquisition (SLA). In recent years, there has been a renewed
interest in obtaining valid and reliable measures of L2 learners‟ implicit and explicit
knowledge (e.g., Bowles, 2011; R. Ellis, 2005). The purpose of the present study was to
examine the nature of the knowledge representations developed by two groups of learners
of Spanish as a L2 at different levels of proficiency. The results show that the two groups
differed with respect to their implicit and explicit knowledge of Spanish and also regarding
the relationship between measures of those representations and the measures of L2
achievement used with each group.
Introduction
Implicit and explicit knowledge of the second language (L2) are two central
constructs in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Implicit knowledge of the L2
is often defined as the intuitive and procedural knowledge that is normally accessed
automatically in fluent performance and that cannot be verbalized. In contrast, explicit
knowledge is understood as the conscious and declarative knowledge of the L2 that is
accessed during controlled processing and that is potentially verbalizable (Bowles, 2011; R.
Ellis, 2005). Research about these two constructs has mainly focused on their role in
language learning and language use, as well as the relationship between these two types of
representations.
Regarding their role in L2 learning and use, there seems to be consensus in that
implicit knowledge is at the core of automated language processing and that the
development of these types of representations is the ultimate goal of L2 acquisition
(Doughty, 2003). On the other hand, there is certain disagreement as to what the role of
explicit knowledge is. Some authors (e.g., Krashen, 1981) attribute a very limited role to
these types of representations; namely, that of a monitor or editor for L2 production under
very specific circumstances. Others (e.g., Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Johns, 2003; Mitchell,
2000) point out that successful performance in uses of language such as writing requires
access to explicit knowledge. R. Ellis (1994) argues that explicit knowledge may play a
facilitative role in L2 acquisition in that it may accelerate the establishment of links
between form and meaning. N.C. Ellis (2005) notes that explicit knowledge of the L2 plays
an important role in linguistic problem-solving: “when automatic capabilities fail, there
follows a call recruiting additional collaborative conscious support” (p. 308).
With respect to the relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge, the debate
revolves around whether they constitute two separate knowledge systems or, on the other
hand, they interact at the representational level and thus one can be converted into the
other. The noninterface position (e.g., Hulstjin, 2002; Krashen, 1981; Paradis, 1994) claims
that these two types of knowledge constitute two different systems with different
processing mechanisms and, as such, neither implicit knowledge can become explicit nor
explicit knowledge can be converted into implicit. Conversely, according to the strong
interface position (e.g., DeKeyser, 1998, 2003) explicit knowledge can become implicit and
vice versa. Finally, there are different versions of a weak interface position, which claims
that explicit knowledge can become implicit under certain conditions1
. Irrespective of their
relationship at the representational level, implicit and explicit knowledge do interact at the
performance level, since L2 learners often resort to both types of representations in L2
production (N.C. Ellis, 2005).
It is widely accepted that the development of implicit knowledge is central to the
development of L2 proficiency. However, as noted above, it is not clear how explicit
knowledge contributes to the acquisition of the L2. Indeed, there are plenty of studies that
have examined the relationship between explicit knowledge and L2 proficiency
operationalized in different ways. For example, Alderson, Clapham, and Steel (1997) only
found low correlations between different measures of explicit knowledge and measures of
L2 proficiency in French. In a study about learners of Italian as an L2, Sorace (1985) found
that learners with higher levels of explicit knowledge performed better in two oral