“The prisoner explained that in her statement she used a phrase
‘a cup of coffee’ merely as denoting ‘a certain quantity of coffee’.
You yourselves will be able to judge whether that is a usual and natural form of expression.”
–D.L.SAYERS,STRONG POISON
In most second language acquisition (SLA) research, there has always been the basic distinction between instructed and uninstructed SLA. According to Housen and Pierrard (2005, p. 1), uninstructed SLA includes “naturalistic, spontaneous, unguided, untutored, [and] informal”
processes of acquisition, while instructed SLA (ISLA) includes “guided, tutored, [or] formal” SLA.
In other words, whether the second language (L2) is learned through authentic social situations with spontaneous communication or under pedagogical guidance determines whether it is considered to be uninstructed or instructed (N. C. Ellis, 1994; R. Ellis, 1985; Klein, 1986; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; McLaughlin, 1987).
Traditionally, Generative SLA research (GenSLA) has dismissed instruction as playing a role in acquisition since the processes of acquisition and learning have been viewed as distinct. As discussed earlier in the dissertation, research on L1 transfer and UG access suggests that L1 and L2 acquisition are very different processes. This is problematic because theoretical GenSLA is not commonly implemented in practical ways in the L2 classroom (Whong, Gil, et al., 2013a; Whong, Marsden, et al., 2013). According to Nassaji (2012), there is a gap between GenSLA research and language pedagogy. In her study, she found that language teachers view GenSLA research as being inaccessible or irrelevant due to its nature of research questions that focus on solving theoretical puzzles, whereas language pedagogy research explores questions that tend to be more pedagogical in nature with results that are more practical and applicable for the language classroom.
This chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.1 will give an overview of language acquisition and language learning. Section 4.2 will discuss the nature of second language knowledge, as well as acquiring and measuring types of L2 knowledge. Lastly, Section 4.3 will look at instruction in the L2 classroom. It will present arguments against and in support of the teaching of L2 grammar.
Additionally, this section will look at and compare two types of teaching: standard (traditional) explicit instruction and linguistically-informed instruction. Section 4.4 will attempt to bridge the gap between Generative Second Language Acquisition (GenSLA) and Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA) by presenting the common ground between GenSLA and ISLA as well as the gap that this project seeks to fill. The final section summarizes the theoretical assumptions of the present study and sets the stage for the review of relevant empirical studies in Chapter 5.
4.1 | The Acquisition & Learning Distinction
What exactly happens when a speaker learns or acquires a second language? Most linguists would agree that there is a cognitive process, or series of processes, that a speaker undergoes in order to learn or acquire a second language. One of the first theories developed specifically for SLA (VanPatten & Williams, 2015) was the Monitor Model put forth by Krashen (1978). This model was a collection of five hypotheses that constituted major assumptions and claims about how a second language was acquired, (1)–(5). In sum, this model was meant to explain why what is taught is not always acquired and why what is acquired may not have been taught.
(1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: there exists a dichotomy between acquisition, a subconscious process that involves the Language Acquisition Device, and learning, a conscious process.
(2) The Monitor Hypothesis: learners only consult their rule knowledge when they have sufficient time to do so; learned knowledge works as a monitor.
(3) The Natural Order Hypothesis: learners follow specific sequences in their acquisition of specific forms (e.g., grammatical morphemes).
(4) The Input Hypothesis: leaners can only acquire language in one way, that is the understanding of messages in the L2 (e.g., comprehensible input).
(5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis: learners must be comfortable and receptive to L2 input in their learning environment.
A major component of the Monitor Model was that instruction is only beneficial for learned knowledge (Krashen, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1985). This learned knowledge is defined as explicit knowledge of L2 rules. He argued that learned knowledge is not helpful for spontaneous, communicative language use, but helpful in very limited instances when easy grammar rules enable learners to monitor their own output. On the other hand, previous research suggests that ISLA can be beneficial, but it is still unknown to what extent. Furthermore, L2 instruction as a whole may be beneficial, but questions still remain as to for what or to what extent it is beneficial. In reality, an important goal of many learners is to be able to communicate effectively, or in a meaningful way, in the L2. This brings us to the idea of communicative competence proposed by Canale and Swain (1980), who propose the four different competences in (6)–(9).
(6) Linguistic competence: the learners’ knowledge of the L2 morphosyntax, lexis, and phonology
(7) Sociolinguistic competence: the learners’ ability to use language appropriately in various social contexts
(8) Discourse competence: the learner’s knowledge of how to produce coherent and cohesive written and oral language
(9) Strategic competence: the learners’ ability to deal with communication difficulties For the most part, ISLA research has focused on (6), but (7) has begun to grow in more recent literature. As for (8)(6), it has primarily been investigated in the context of L2 writing, which may very well be viewed as a complement to ISLA research. Finally, (9)is at play in the interactionists approaches to SLA, most notably in relation to learners’ negotiation of meaning (Long, 1996). If the primary goal of L2 instruction is to produce learners who can communicate effectively, then it is important to consider the nature of the knowledge that enables them to do so. In a broad
from one theory to another. Regardless, DeKeyser (2007b) and R. Ellis (2005a) maintain a distinction between knowledge which consists of information about the language and knowledge which allows leaners to unconsciously use the language in spontaneous communication.
4.2 | The Nature of L2 Knowledge
The nature of L2 knowledge is often discussed as a dichotomy between explicit and implicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is often defined as ‘knowledge about’ language. It is described as knowledge that learners are aware of and can retrieve consciously from memory (Loewen, 2015).
In other words, learners know that they possess this information and are able to verbalize it in the form of a description of L2 use or an L2 rule (Ur, 2011). Learners may use metalinguistic knowledge to give these descriptions and rules, but explicit knowledge is not necessarily comprised of technical terminology (Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2002; Gutiérrez, 2013). Implicit knowledge has been called ‘knowledge of’ language rather than ‘knowledge about’. The primary distinction between these two types of knowledge lies in awareness. Ur (2011, p. 510) gives the following definitions of implicit and explicit knowledge:
Implicit knowledge of grammar is that which is demonstrated through students’
actual production of speech or writing in communication and does not imply the ability to explain underlying rules. Explicit knowledge is the ability to verbalize a rule or description of usage, often using grammatical metalanguage.
(Ur, 2011, p. 510)
Loewen (2015, p. 20) gives the examples in (10) of how L2 knowledge might be verbalized to express the formation of first-person, present, simple tense in Spanish. (10) uses technical terms, while (11) uses more lay terms.
(10) The first-person singular morpheme –o is added to the base form of the verb.
(11) I use –o at the end of a word when I want to say that I usually do something or am doing it at the moment.
Regardless of which way something is expressed, (10) or (11), learners are showing that they possess explicit knowledge of this linguistic rule.
From a cognitive perspective (R. Ellis et al., 2009; Rebuschat, 2013), learners do require the use of more resources in order to retrieve explicit knowledge from memory. A consequence of explicit knowledge retrieval being cognitively effortful is that the time taken to access explicit knowledge does not allow for quick, uninterrupted language production (R. Ellis, 2009a). Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, is accessed quite quickly, effortlessly, and unconsciously, which allows it to be used for spontaneous speech production. For example, if a native speaker of English were presented with the sentences in (12), they will most likely say that (12)–(14) are grammatical, but (15) is not even though it follows the same pattern as (13). Examples sentences are taken from Loewen (2015, p. 21).
(12) She gave the book to him.
(13) She gave him the book.
(14) She donated the book to the library.
(15) *She donated the library the book.
If a native speaker were asked to explain the reasoning for their judgments, they might have a difficult time explaining why (15) is ungrammatical and (13) is grammatical. One might find that the L1 speaker is unable to articulate why they find such sentences to sound better or worse than others. Due to the speaker drawing on their implicit linguistic knowledge to give judgments to the sentences, they are unable to verbalize why some sentences are grammatical and others are ungrammatical, unless they have had some formal training in English grammar of linguistics. As the example above shows, the presence of implicit knowledge does not imply the existence of explicit knowledge (Ur, 2011). While it is possible for L2 learners to be unaware of the linguistics knowledge they possess, this is more likely for naturalistic learners, rather than instructed learners.
In other words, L1 speakers tend to possess far more implicit knowledge than explicit knowledge, while it is often the case that L2 learners have more explicit metalinguistic knowledge of the grammar than L1 speakers (Alderson & Hudson, 2013).
Another prominent view on the distinction between types of knowledge is Skill Acquisition Theory (DeKeyser, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c), under which the distinction in types of knowledge lies between automatized knowledge that is used without awareness, and knowledge that learners can verbalize
theory of learning (DeKeyser, 2007b; Segalowitz, 2003) also deals with the nature of L2 knowledge and the mental representation of that knowledge. This theory is not specific to language as it proposes that developing communicative competence in an L2 is similar to the same trajectory as learning other skills (e.g., playing an instrument or sport). Similar to the cognitive approach, though, Skill Acquisition Theory maintains a distinction between two types of knowledge. Instead of referring to these types of knowledge as implicit and explicit knowledge, they are called procedural and declarative knowledge. As aforementioned, declarative knowledge includes knowledge that leaners can verbalize, while procedural knowledge is automatized, and leaners have difficulty verbalizing it. According to R. Ellis (2009a), implicit and explicit knowledge are viewed as modular, meaning that they are stored in two different places in the brain and, therefore, do not intermingle. Procedural and declarative knowledge, on the other hand, are viewed to be part of the same continuum, with declarative knowledge being able to be proceduralized or automatized through practice (DeKeyser, 2007b).
The Acquisition of L2 Knowledge
It is generally viewed that the type of knowledge acquired is closely related to the type of learning that has occurred. If the two types of learning are considered to be different processes, the results are then stored in different parts of the brain (N. C. Ellis, 2007b). Therefore, it is assumed that implicit learning occurs without intention or awareness and results in implicit knowledge, while explicit learning is considered to be intentional and overt and, therefore, results in explicit knowledge (Krashen, 2003; Macaro & Masterman, 2006; Rebuschat, 2013).
For example, in a more traditional classroom approach, L2 language learning has been viewed as an accumulation of explicit knowledge about grammatical rules and vocabulary (Littlewood, 2011).
This perception stems from lesson plans from L2 languages that focus on specific rules or grammatical forms in hopes of the L2 learners using these rules and forms to build up a complete knowledge of the L2 grammar. Loewen (2015, p. 25) explains why it is generally considered easy to teach explicit knowledge:
Explicit grammar instruction works well because it results in explicit, declarative knowledge about language (Doughty, 2003). The grammatical rules of an L2 are relatively clear, and they can be explicitly presented to learners. … Additionally, learners feel that they are learning something because they are able to articulate the L2 rules that have been presented to them.
(Loewen, 2015, p. 25)
Although explicit rule learning is very important to successful L2 acquisition, being aware of a rule does not necessarily mean that it is easily used in communication (R. Ellis, 2005b, 2009a). Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, is considered to be very difficult to teach; in fact, Krashen (2003) even argues that it cannot be taught. Krashen (2003) and Hulstijn (2002) both agree that implicit knowledge takes a considerable amount of time to develop, and it only happens as learners are exposed to L2 input and gradually build up their cognitive systems to recognize the patterns that the input presents them with. According to (DeKeyser, 2007a), the development of L2 implicit knowledge requires large amounts of time, practice, and input, and providing L2 learners with sufficient L2 practice can be difficult, especially where large classes and a full curriculum are concerned.
Therefore, learners in L2 classroom would benefit from not only explicit instruction, but a supplementation of implicit learning opportunities, too. While explicit knowledge is relatively easy to learn but difficult for production, implicit knowledge is relatively difficult to learn but easy for production. This continues to be one of the most important issues in ISLA: how the L2 classroom becomes an environment which provides optimal opportunity for learners to take their L2 explicit knowledge and convert it into L2 implicit knowledge.
The Interface Hypothesis
The previous section concluded that implicit and explicit knowledge are different types of knowledge which are. What remains to be determined is in what ways in which they are related.
The Interface Hypothesis (N. C. Ellis, 2005), addresses whether or not explicit knowledge can become implicit knowledge. There are three positions within the Interface Hypothesis: (1) ‘No Interface Position’ (Krashen, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1985)., (2), ‘Strong Interface Position’ (DeKeyser, 1995, 1997), and (3) ‘Weak Interface Position’ (N. C. Ellis, 2005, 2007a, 2007b; R. Ellis, 1994/2008). One might imagine these positions to fall on some kind of continuum as in Figure 2.1.
‘Strong Interface’ ‘Weak Interface Positions’ ‘No Interface’
Figure 4.1. The Interface Hypothesis and its positions
The ‘No Interface Position’ within the Interface Hypothesis explores a relationship between explicit and implicit L2 knowledge where there is there is an absolute separation between implicit and explicit knowledge inside the learner’s mind as proposed by Krashen (1978, 1981, 1982, 1985).
While Krashen did not specifically refer to his Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis as a ‘No Interface Position’, he suggested that it is possible to have implicit and explicit knowledge about similar linguistic features without this knowledge being connected in any way. The only purpose of language instruction would be, according to his view, a source of L2 input that can support acquisition, as a method of monitoring output. He proposes that for successful language acquisition, input must be comprehensible—a little beyond the learner’s current state of acquisition. In response to this, Pienemann (1985, p. 45) explains the shift in ISLA from instruction as a series of taught grammatical rules to “providing linguistic input for acquisition in the classroom”.
One objection to the ‘No Interface Position’ is that the idea of storing linguistic information about a structure, for instance, in two separate linguistic systems is clearly an inefficient way for the brain to cope with and store information (Gass, Behney, & Plonsky, 2013). Another objection to the
‘No Interface’ distinction between acquisition and learning is the consideration of learners who learn a language in only a formal setting. For example, if these learners mainly receive instruction in their native language, rather than the L2, we would expect that they have a learned system and not an acquired system since there is no way to “pick up” information from the environment. In sum, the ‘No Interface’ position seems counterintuitive, as there seem to be no means of evaluating the claims since Krashen does not appear to give any kind of specific criteria for this position.
The ‘Strong Interface Position’ (DeKeyser, 1995, 1997) views language learning much like any other kind of learning, both cognitive and psychomotor. This is the position that proposes the sequence that learning progresses from declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge to, finally, full automatization of the procedural knowledge. In other words, this position claims that explicit knowledge can, and does, become implicit knowledge over time. DeKeyser states that declarative knowledge is obtained through observation and analysis, verbal instruction, or a combination of both. Under this view, the movement from one stage to the next is facilitated by learner practice.
The learner needs to perform in order to practice (e.g., practice producing or understanding language). This is only the beginning, as in order for procedural knowledge to become fully automatized, it needs to become fast and without deliberation. In other words, practice is imperative to ensure that behaviors are quick, and attention spent is diminished. It is only at this point that it will finally become automatized knowledge. This position was tested and corroborated by DeKeyser (1997) with a study in which learners of an artificial language were presented with four rules and different types of instruction: (i) one group received comprehensive practice for two rules and production practice for the other two; (ii) another group received production
practice for the first two rules and comprehensive practice for the other two rules; (iii) a third group received equal amount of production and comprehension practice for all the rules. The results suggested that declarative knowledge followed by practice led to grater proceduraliazation and automaticity. This position was further supported by de Jong (2005), who performed a similar study with L2 Spanish learners. The results corroborated DeKeyser (1997) in that aural comprehension yielded greater speed in comprehension.
The third position, the ‘Weak Interface Positions’ (N. C. Ellis, 2005, 2007a, 2007b; R. Ellis, 1994/2008), actually consists of more than one view. There is no one single ‘Weak Interface Position’. Instead, Weak Interface is a way of categorizing the positions which fall between the
‘Strong Interface Position’ and the ‘No Interface Position’. One weak face model, put forth by R.
Ellis (1994/2008), says that developmental features of language can be converted into implicit knowledge but only when the learner is at the correct developmental stage, one example of this would be acquisition of third person -s. For variational features, though, (e.g., copula be), they can be converted form explicit to implicit knowledge at any point. Another weak interface model proposed by (N. C. Ellis, 2005, 2007a, 2007b) states that implicit and explicit knowledge can cooperatively work together, with implicit knowledge being the most important for learning. N.
Ellis proposes that this cooperation is true for any learning task, whether it be language-based or not.
To summarize, while the GenSLA paradigm has traditionally viewed acquisition and learning as two different processes, there is growing acknowledgement within GenSLA literature that instruction may be beneficial to L2 proficiency. According to Whong, Gil, and Marsden (2013b), understanding the distinction between learning and acquisition is important when considering whether instruction is effective in the development of not-easily-acquired-properties. They go on to state that research needs to further explore different types of language input, as well as the interface between learned and acquired knowledge. Clearly, there continues to be a gap between GenSLA theory and the results of pedagogy research. To inform this research gap, GenSLA theory needs to become informed by findings in pedagogy research and vice-versa. This gap, and work within it, will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.
The Measurement of L2 Knowledge
While a working model of SLA in which there is a clear distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge is important, just as important is having instruments with which to collect valid and
reliable measurements of implicit and explicit knowledge. It is possible that, through the development of appropriate instruments, researchers can measure and investigate changes in learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge. However, it remains difficult to strictly measure implicit
reliable measurements of implicit and explicit knowledge. It is possible that, through the development of appropriate instruments, researchers can measure and investigate changes in learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge. However, it remains difficult to strictly measure implicit