Rethinking explicit/implicit learning: One view from the application of linguistic theory

Prof. Bill VanPatten - Michigan State University 

 

 

In L2 research, it is agreed that learners must develop an implicit mental representation of language. However, there is debate as to how this implicit system develops. Of interest to the present discussion is what can be called the explicit/implicit debate: to what extent is explicit learning implicated in adult second language acquisition? The question has largely centered on formal properties of language, generally called “rules” and “forms.” Proponents for some role of explicit learning argue that learners (must) somehow engage explicit processes in extracting rules and forms from the input they are exposed to. Proponents for implicit learning argue that explicit processes are not engaged.

 

In this presentation, I will argue that the explicit/implicit learning debate as currently formulated largely disappears when one asks the following question: “What rules do teachers and researchers think learners are getting from the input?” I will argue that rules, in the classic sense as they are used in something like the explicit/implicit debate, don’t exist. That is, they are not psychologically or linguistically real. Instead, they represent external ways to talk about something internal that is too abstract (and perhaps too complex) to talk about easily. In short, I will argue that what winds up in an implicit system bears no resemblance to any rules in the classic sense. For this reason, any explicit learning of rules is irrelevant to what winds up in the implicit system. This perspective has a number of consequences, not the least of which are decisions that teachers make about what to teach and how to teach.