The Implicit versus Explicit Division in Language ...

The Implicit versus Explicit Division in Language Learning Theory, Method, and Practice Author(s): Carolyn G. Lally Source: Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, Vol. 31, No. 2, Focus on Children's and Young Adult Literature (Autumn, 1998), pp. 154-159 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Association of Teachers of German Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3531176 Accessed: 16-02-2016 05:43 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3531176?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley and American Association of Teachers of German are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.246.18 on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:43:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Articles The ImplicitversusExplicit Division in Language Learning Theory,Method,and Practice CarolynG. Lally

ofNebraska atOmaha University

Introduction

language and in the targetlanguage,withexplanationsand without,in paradigmsand in diaThe role of grammarin the second language logues"(Garrett themostbasic 134). Nevertheless, classroomhas been questionedin recentyears. formof the grammarquestionhas been: should or deThis uncertainty may be due in partto the rapid grammarbe taughtinductively (implicitly) successionof contemporary languageacquisition ductively(explicitly)(Ellis; Garrett;Heilenman; theoriesand methods.Forexample,thegrammar- McLaughlin;Terrell)? methodofthe late nineteenth and the to explicit and implicit translation BarryMcLaughlinrefers rulesas instruction as controversial centuriesviewedgrammar constructsin foreign earlytwentieth the object of language study,whereasaudiolin- languagetheoretical study(129). Morespecifically, influencedby BurrhusE Skin- HarrisWinitz describesexplicit instruction ofgramgualism,strongly as "a languagelearningprocess ner'sbehavioristview of language learning,pre- maticalstructures rules inwhichtherulesofthegrammar ferred habitformation to explicit ofL2 are learned grammatical [and inwhich]lexicalunder(Lado). Whiletherationalist approachtolanguage as formalstatements is learningtheorystressestheimportanceofinternal standing,in thebeginningstagesof instruction, Krashen's Monitor Model the translation of words and mentalactivity, Stephen providedthrough acknowledgesthe importanceof both subcon- phrases fromthe firstlanguage" (34). Implicit instruction isone thatexposesthelansciousacquisitionand overtapplicationofrulesof grammatical and lexicalprinciples grammar.Moreover,subsequent theories,tech- guage learnerto grammatical niques, and methodssuch as CommunityLan- through natural language experience (Asher; guage Learning(Curran)and processinginstruc- Krashen;Winitz).In additionto a generaldivision tion(VanPatten)have continuedto eitherempha- among researchersand methodologists, teachers size or de-emphasizethe importanceof grammar are also "splitintotwo camps,thosewho believe in the second language classroom.In addition, thatclassroomlearnerswilldevelop all thegramcontemporarytopics such as "communicative maticalcompetencetheyneed fromexposureto (Buck, appropriateinput ... and those who insistthat competence"(Savignon)and "proficiency" is necessary" Byrnes,and Thompson) have redefinedsecond some explicitdiscussionofstructure a definite (Garrett134). However,in spiteofsharinga goal withoutoffering language instruction of producinga highlyproficient second language framework in whichto place in-classgrammar. The issues of whetherto teach grammarand learner,implicitand explicitstrategiesdivergein how itshouldbe taughtlie at the heartofthe im- almostall areas ofpractice. In orderto demonstrate thesuperiority ofone plicit-versus-explicit controversy.Indeed, "lanin a teachers have guage taughtgrammar variety approachover the other,manyresearchershave ofways-inductively and deductively, inthenative engaged in implicit-versus-explicit studiesof in154


DIVISION LALLY:IMPLICIT-EXPLICIT

155

Hechtexamined discussion GreenandKarlheinz theaccessistructional methods.The following of within the rerules in 300 the division German by explicit grammatical profession bility highlights ofEnglish. Inthisstudythesubjects oftheimplicit-versus-exlearners had a smallfraction viewing beentaught rulesfortheEnglish studiesflooding literature. explicit grammar professional plicit Theparticipants were pointsunderinvestigation. errors thenshowntwelve andaskedtooffer rules orexplanations ofthegrammatical pointinquesImplicit versus Explicit Instruction: a correction. Research Studies tionandtoproduce GreenandHecht found thatlearners weremoreproficient atmaking methods a comparative thanwiththeexplanation oftheir deIngeneral, study expo- corrections ofspecific toonetypeofinstructioncisionsinterms rules.The sesonegroupofstudents grammatical overallwereableto identify 78 percent toa second students andexposesanother groupofstudents butcouldonlydistinguish 46 per Bothgroupsare thentested. ofthecorrections typeof instruction. methodsstudyof the centoftherules(Greenand Hecht176).ThereThe typicalcomparative 1980sand 1990shasgreatly thatof searchers concluded thatlearners areabletoprochangedfrom eveniftheycannotnamethe the1960sand early1970s.According toMichael duce a correction rule.Although studieswerelarge- relevant tolendtheir Long,theearlycomparative unwilling supandproduct-oriented "non-interface" between scale,long-term, (310).Re- porttoKrashen's position and acquisition, usedproficiency tests toevaluate thepro- learning Greenand Hechtdo searchers theeffectiveness ofstudents inclasseswhere question ofexplicit of instruction gressoflargenumbers wereexposedto one method, grammatical rulesin thesecondlanguageclasshalfthestudents andtheotherhalfto room. suchas grammar translation, suchas audiolingualism. These PeterMcCandless andHarris anothermethod, Winitz compared attention tothein- theeffects ofan implicit, largestudies paidlittle typically comprehension-focused witha traditional dividualclassroomenvironments. Examplesof typeofinstruction explicit typeof andexplicit on students' tospeakGerman. comparisons instruction earlylarge-scale implicit ability includethe Colorado(Levin),thePennsylvaniaTheyadmitthatthenotionof a traditional apill-defined andWinitz (McCandless (Smith),and the GUME projects(Wertheimer).proachremains theauthors characterize their traprojectsin generalfailedto provide 357). However, Large-scale or long-term advan- ditional as (1) including evidenceofanysubstantial theuseofa textapproach method. bookto provideexplicit ofGerman tagesforanyparticular explanations havecon- grammar rulesandEnglish translations ofGerman Sincethe1980s,manyresearchers studiesthathavecompared texts; students toperform ductedsmaller-scale various (2) requiring proandverbconjugation ofimplicit instruction and (3) retheeffects andexplicit drills; (Dulay, nunciation to present students shortoralstatements. GreenandHecht;Hammond; quiring Burt,andKrashen; The activities and McCandless Krashen; Winitz;Little;Odlin; comprehension-focused implicit, ofpreparing andCadierno; consisted VanPatten meals,playing Scott;Terrell; games,visPostovsky; andparticipating studies ofthe iting inoutdoor activities. Thesmall-scale stores, Winitz). comparison activities inthe their from 1980sand 1990stendto differ performed bystudents prede- Thevarious considera- comprehension cessorsnotonlyinsize,butalsointheir groupweredesignedto provide com- themwithmeaningful to activities. Small-scale tionofactualin-class spokenGermantailored ofwhatisactually theirlevel of understanding. theinvestigation McCandlessand parisons prefer foundthatthestudents inthecomprehento theexamination of Winitz goingon intheclassroom on a speech-producbetter ofstudents ontheresults ofa single thousands pro- siongroupperformed tiontask,judgedbynative thanstudents exam(Long310). speakers, ficiency in the traditional in second lanInspiteofthisimportant explicit group. change In another Winitz theeffecstudies,mostofthequestions study, guageacquisition compared ofimplicit and explicit on intheclassroom stillremain tiveness methodologies grammar concerning ofstudents toidentify corForexample, there areas many small- theability unanswered. grammatically twosimilar After theimplicitrectsentences. scale studieswithresults exposing groups supporting ofinstruction toeither an implicit form as ofthosewhichen- ofstudents instruction viewofgrammar ofimplicit TotalPhysical Reofexplicit instruc-consisting dorsethesuperiority primarily grammar PeterS. sponseactivities tion.In supportof implicit (Asher),or explicitinstruction instruction,


UP31.2 (Fall1998)

156

conbased on "The Learnables"(Sagarnaand Winitz), teachingstrategies.The explicitinstruction ofexplicitgrammarrules allparticipants engagedina Grammaticality Judg- sistedofthepresentation and sample sentencesthatcontainedthe target mentTest. Testconsisted structures. The implicit instruction was comprised The Grammaticality Judgment ofa storycontainingmanyexoftwenty-seven sentencepairsin whichone sen- ofthepresentation ina naturalcontext. and theotherwas ungram- amplesofthetargetstructures tencewas grammatical matical. Students read each sentence and re- The implicitgroups were exposed to ten times as the explicitinstruction spondedorallywitha "yes"or "no"as tothegram- manytargetstructures of each sentencepresented.Resultsof groups. maticality As measuredbya pre-and posttest, the testrevealedthatthe studentswho were exScott'sreinstructional methodsperformed sultsinbothexperiments revealedthatthestudents posed to implicit betterthanthosewho wereexposed who were exposed to explicitteachingstrategies significantly thosewho wereexposedto implicit to explicitinstruction on grammaticality judgment. outperformed Laura K. Heilenman,however, However,itshouldbe notedthatthestudentswere teachingstrategies. at no timerequiredto producethetargetlanguage, cautionsthat withtheexceptionoftheir"production ofcompreoftargetlanguage hension"ofthegrammaticality who Scotthas shownthatlearners essentially, receivedexplicit, rule-based on two instruction sentences. werebetter able to fillin structures grammatical Nina Spada acknowledgesthatalthoughthe blanksand respondto multiple-choice, short term "communicativecompetence"has gained answerquestionsin theabsenceofcontext. Alpopularityin recentyears,therehas been little may indeed thoughsuch explicitinstruction withhigher researchundertakento detestscores(assumclassroom-centered providestudents ing thatthe measureused here is similarto scribewhatgoes on in communicative classrooms manyclassroomgrammar tests),it cannotbe in termsof actual instructional practicesand proassumedthattheknowledge theexpermitting cedures (138). Therefore,her 1986 studyhad a theimplicit plicitgroupsto outperform groups double agenda in thatitsoughtto examinetypes would automatically transfer to otherareas ofinstruction as wellas to providean accuratede(e.g., freeconversation, listening comprehension,etc.)(134). ofclassroomactivities scription byusinga detailed observationscheme referred to as COLT-ComHeilenman'scritiquerefers municativeOrientationof Language Teaching. towhat Specifically, The initialresultsofSpada's investigation revealed EndelTulvingand Donald M. Thompsondescribe of the threedistinct as the encodingspecificity thatalthoughthe instructors principle(352). This as A, B, and C) underinves- principle classrooms(identified facarguesthatone ofthemostimportant ap- torsin recognition tigationall claimedto use a communicative memoryis theextentto which each differed the encodingor learningsituationresemblesthat proach to language instruction, in actual instruction and situation(Eysenck111). greatly specificclassroom ofthetesting activities. Observationdata revealedthatstudents In spiteofthelargenumberofimplicit/explicit inclassA receivedform-based students studiesintheareasofcognitive instruction, (Berry) psychology in class B receivedinstruction focusingon both and secondlanguageacquisition(Ellis),thereisno formand meaning,and studentsinclassC received overwhelming evidencedemonstrating thesupeof instruction. Preeither theoretical faction. For and primarily riority everystudy meaning-focused thereisanotherthat instruction, posttestresultsof thisstudysuggestthatstudents supporting implicit who receivebothform(explicit) and meaning(im- favorsexplicittechniques. plicit)instruction performbetteron speakingactivitiesthan do studentswho receiveonlyformbased instruction. Studentsreceivingmeaning-fo- A Mergingof Extremes cused instruction (classC) also improvedfrompreto posttest, butthisimprovement was notfoundto severalteachersand theorists have Fortunately, be as significant. and explicittypesofinattemptedto fuseimplicit Twostudiesin supportofexplicitgrammarin- structionby advocatingapproaches that allow structionhave been conducted by VirginiaM. learnersto focuson formwithina communicative Scott.In both the 1989 and the 1990 variantof context(Rutherford and Sharwood Smith;Ellis; VanPattenand Cadierno).A briefreviewof her study,Scott compared explicitand implicit Terrell;


DIVISION LALLY:IMPLICIT-EXPLICIT

157

attention is visionsof in-classgram- storytookplace.Third,thelearner's severalless-restrictive toform sentence ofbothimplicitturned bymanipulating compomar-consolidating components exercises. Students thenuse andexplicit languageteach- nentsingrammatical camps-canprovide or tasks erswithmoretemperate gram- thetargetformsto carryout functions optionsregarding marinstruction. Thefollowing ofa focus (Adair-Hauck, Donato,and Cumo92). examples a communicative context modified and exonform within represent In 1991 TracyD. Terrell an encouraging stepawayfromthebinaryim- pandedhisviewoftheroleofexplicit grammar in languagelearning the instruction construction fromtheearlier dividing plicit/explicit presently hesharedwith Krashen "implicit" position Stephen profession. languageteaching on theNaturalApproach. and MichaelSharwood whileworking WilliamRutherford Terrell tore- laterconcluded thatin addition tofacilitating Smith usedtheterm"consciousness the raising" learner awareness ofparticular lin- reading and writing fertoincreased inprocess,explicit grammar within a communicative or struction features (EGI) assiststhe languageacquisition guistic setting, canhavedegrees ofelaboration processbyserving as an advancedorganizer task.Thisconcept that and explicitness ofinput, a meaning-form (107). SandraFotosinvestigatedaidsinthesegmenting ofa grammar task focuser thatassistslearners theeffects inestablishing meanconsciousness-raising instruction with formorphologically comgrammar combining opportunitiesing-form relationships formeaning-focused use ofthetarget and forms for forms, plex language. byproviding monitoring teacher-fronted formof (58). She compareda formal instruction witha control LeonaB. LeBlancandCarolyn G. Lallyexamconsciousness-raising tasks ineda newhybrid thatincorporates both group who performedcommunicative technique butwithout implicit matched informat, andfeatures andexplicit forms ofinstruction. Wedevellength, a grammatical context. Theresults revealeda sig- opedan instructional environment wherethestuoftarget nificant increaseinthe"noticing" their ownexplicit instruction gram- dentsweretomediate theuseofa secondout-of-class maticalfeaturesforboth consciousness-raising textbook through based on this andengageinimplicit activities classmeetgroups(Fotos390). Conclusions during inthatFotosonlyex- ings.Results oftheir examination showedthatstuhowever, studyarelimited, tonotice aminedstudents' andnottheir skill dentswhoengagedinbothstudent-mediated exability structures anddic- plicitinstruction and in-classimplicit inproducing thetarget instories instruction on a standardized tations. scoredhigher achievement test con- thandidstudents A renewedemphasison grammatical whoengagedinmoretraditional hasbeenproposed activities bothinandoutofclass. bybothRod explicit sciousness-raising Theauthors feelthatit EllisandRichard Schmidt. BillVanPatten recommends thedevelFinally, is important forlanguagestudents to be exposed opment ofprocessing-instruction activities. Instead instruction as well offorcing toexplicit students toproduce consciousness-raising specific grammatical communicative as tosubsequent stresses therelainputcontainingstructures, processing-instruction thetarget structures. Infact,forSchmidt thecon- tionship between forms andthemeaning theyconoflanguage instruc-veybycreating controlled "structured sciousness-raising component input"acneededforthecon- tivities tionisthenecessary element (VanPatten 60). version ofinput intointake Whiletherehavebeencountless studiessupinformation) (perceived oflinguistic either orexplicit instrucforms) (129). (thenoticing porting implicit grammar BonnieAdair-Hauck, RichardDonato,and tion,relatively fewhaveexamined theeffectiveness to as ofmoremoderate Philomena Cumoadvocatewhattheyrefer to fuse techniques attempting a "wholelanguage"approachto teaching theorists and reNevertheless, gram- the extremes. views searchers whoadvocatea focuson form mar-thefusion ofbothexplicit andimplicit a within tointegrate andfunctioncommunicative contextare demonstrating that form, designed meaning, inallaspectsofclassroom In grammar instruction neednotbe ina stateofperlanguageinstruction. a wholelanguageclass,theinstructor first intro- petualtraction. structures ducesgrammar whilefocusing onmeana story. Second,theinstructor ingbypresenting continues thefocuson meaning whileincreasingEndingthe Ideological Divide learner by havingstudents participation arrange scrambled sentences intotheorderinwhichthe Inspiteofthenumerous studies thathaveex-


158

UP31.2(Fall1998)

amined explicitand implicitinstruction, James J."Motivating Children andAdults toAcquire theorists Asher, a SecondLanguage." 3 (1979):87-99. SPEAQJoumal of suggestthattherestillneeds to be a re-thinking Elizabeth B. "Testing Foreign Language Reading grammarwithinlanguageteaching(Ellis;Garrett). Bemhardt, TheImmediate RecallProtocol." Die Comprehension: However,beforenovel discussioncan begin,the German 16 (1983):27-33. UnterrichtspraxislTeaching implicit-versus-explicit controversy dividingmany DianneC. "HowImplicit isImplicit Berry, ImLearning?" secondlanguageteachersand researchers mustbe Ed.Geoffrey Underwood. Oxford: Oxplicit Cognition. eliminated.Untilgrammarinstruction is definedin ford 1996.203-25. termsofsomethingmoreflexible thanthepresent Buck,Katheryne, UP, HeidiBymes, andIrene eds. Thompson, willcontinueto binaryconstruction, TheACTFLOralProficiency professionals Interview Tester Training viewgrammarintermsofeitherimplicit or explicit Manual. Yonkers, NY:ACTFL,1989. instruction. '"ALinguistic ModelforLearning and ideas andLivcom- Curran, Charles. Moreover, suggestions Innovative ingin theNewAge of thePerson." Aping fromone camp willnot be respectedby the toLanguageTeaching. Ed. Robert W Blair. proaches otheruntiltheideologicaldivideis removed. MA:Newbury, 1982.136-46. Recentattemptsto mergethe implicit/explicit Rowley, Marina andStephen Krashen. Heidi, Dulay, Burt, Language extremessuch as consciousness-raising (RutherTwo.Oxford: Oxford 1982. UP, ford and Sharwood Smith), whole-language Rod.Instructed SecondLanguage LeamEllis, Acquisition: (Adair-Hauck, Donato,and Cumo),student-medi- ingintheClassroom. Oxford: 1990. Blackwell, ated explicitinstruction (LeBlanc and Lally),and . "Talking ReShop:SecondLanguage Acquisition search:HowDoes ItHelpTeachers?" processing-instruction (VanPatten)will help the ELTJournal 47 language teacherlocate a middlegroundupon (1993):3-11. Michael whichto place therole of grammar.Subscription Eysenck, andDistinctiveElaboration, W."Depth, ness." LevelsofProcessing inHuman Ed.Laird to an extremepositionhas notbeen provento be Memory. S. Cermak and Craik. NJ: Lawrence Hillsdale, Fergus with the to field particularly advantageous regard 1979.88-118. Erlbaum, of second languageteaching,and it is limiting to Sandra. "Consciousness Fotos, Raisingand Noticing boththeteacherand thestudent.A less restrictive Focuson Form:Grammar TaskPerformance through discussionofin-classgrammarwillbetterpromote versusFormalInstruction." 14 AppliedLinguistics thesharingof ideas and narrow,ifnotmend,the (1993):385-407. schismwithintheprofession. Nina."TheProblem with Grammar: What Kind Can Garrett, theLanguage Use?"ModemLanguage Learner Journal 70 (1986):133-48. Conclusion andExplicit Green, S.,andKarlheinz Hecht. "Implicit Peter Grammar: AnEmpirical 13 Study." Applied Linguistics (1992):168-84. This articledoes notcall fora paradigmshift, Robert M. "Accuracy intheSecondLanguage mostostensibly because thereisno newframework Hammond, Classroom." 71 408-17. Hispania (1988): availableto replacethe implicit/explicit archetype Heilenman, LauraK."Grammar." within Research Research in place. It does suggest,however,that currently II.Ed.Vicki andCarolHerron. Valdosta: ColGalloway our profession's blindingobsessionwiththe preson,1995.129-48. sentimplicit-versus-explicit format is lim- Krashen, grammar SecondLanguage andSecStephen. Acquisition ondLanguage itingdiscussionand growthin otherareas and Oxford: 1981. Learning. Pergamon, shouldbe abandoned.Indeed,theroleofgrammar Krashen, andTracy Terrell. TheNaturalApproach: Stephen, in theClassroom. Oxford: inthesecond languageclassroomhas alwaysbeen Language Acquisition Per1983. a "thornyissue" (Garrett133), yet itshould not gamon, NewYork:McGraw, LanguageTeaching. divideteachersand researchers whohavethesame Lado,Robert. 1964. professional progoal--thedevelopmentofhighly LeonaB.,andCarolyn G. Lally.'"AComparison LeBlanc, ficient speakersin a second language. ofInstructor-Mediated versus Student-Mediated Explicit in the Communicative ClassLanguageInstruction WorksCited room." French Review 71 (1998):734-46. Lennart. inForeign Studies Levin, Comparative Language Adair-Hauck, Bonnie,Richard Donato,and Philomena Teaching: TheGUMEProject. and Almquist Stodckholm: Cumo."Using a WholeLanguage toTeaching Wiskell, 1972. Approach Teacher's Handbook: Contextualized Lan- Little, Grammar." David."Words andTheir a for Properties: Arguments Ed. Judith L. Shrum andEileen LexicalApproach guageInstruction. to Fedagogical Grammar."rspecW. Glisan. Boston: 1994.90-105. tives onPedagogical Grammar. Heinle, Ed.Terence Odlin. Cam-


DIVISION LALLY: IMPLICIT-EXPLICIT

159

129-58. UP 1994.99-122. Cambridge bridge: M."AnEmpirical andImplicit MotivationScott, ofExplicit "TheDesign andPsycholinguistic Michael. Virginia Study Long, in Foreign ofResearch on Foreign Strategies Foreign Teaching LanguageEducation." LanguageLearning." andtheClassroom. ModemLanguage 73 (1989):14-22. Research Ed. Journal Language Acquisition andImplicit MA:Heath,1991.309-20. Barbara Freed. . "Explicit GrammarTeaching Strategies: Lexington, "Test Data." FrenchReview63 (1990): andHarris Winitz. ofPronunciation New Empirical McCandless, Peter, Instruction in 779-89. One YearofComprehension Following Burrhus Behavior. NewYork: CollegeGerman."Modem LanguageJournal70 Skinner, Appleton, E Verbal 1957. (1986):355-62. and'Unconscious' D. A Comparison Learn- Smith, andAudi"'Conscious' Phillip oftheCognitive Barry. McLaughlin, 24 (1990):617-34. to Foreign Instruction: olingual Approaches ing."TESOLQuarterly Language onPedagogical ThePennsylvania Terence. "Conclusion." PhiladelOdlin, Foreign Language Project. Perspectives Ed. Terence forCurriculum Grammar. 1970. Odlin.Cambridge: Cambridge phia:Center Development, Between UP 1994.234-45. Instructional DifferSpada,Nina."Relationships Alice. inContext. 2nd encesandLeaming Outcomes: AProcess-Product Hadley, Omaggio Teaching Language Study ed.Boston: 1993. ofCommunicative LinHeinle, Language Teaching." Applied A."ThePriority ofAural 8 (1986):137-61. Valeria Comprehension guistics Postovsky, TheComprehen-Terrell, intheLanguage Process." Instruction ina Acquisition TracyD. "TheRoleofGrammar sionApproach toForeign Instruction. Ed.HarCommunicative ModemLanguage Journal Language Approach." MA:Newbury, 1981.170-86. risWinitz. 75 (1991):52-63. Rowley, andMichael "Con- Tulving, Sharwood Smith. Rutherford, William, Endel,and DonaldM. Thompson. "Encoding andUniversal andRetrieval Grammar Specificity Processes inEpisodic Grammar." sciousness-raising Memory." Rutherford Psychological andSecondLanguage Ed.William Review 80 (1973):352-73. Teaching. and MichaelSharwoodSmith.NewYork:Newbury,VanPatten, andForeign Bill."Second Language Acquisition 1988.107-17. Part 2."ADFLBulletin 23.3(1992): Teaching: Language BasicStructures, andHarris 23-37. SpanSagama,Blanca, Winilz. Book1.KansasCity, VanPatten, Instruction ish,A Textbook Bill,andTeresaCadiemo."Explicit forTheLeamables, 1990. andInput inSecondLanguage MO:International Studies AcLinguistics, Processing." 15 (1993):225-41. Sandra.Communicative Savignon, Competence: Theory quisition andPractice. MA:Addison, 1983. Harris. as a Function of Winitz, "Grammaticality Reading, Judgment and Implicit Richard. inSecond Instruction in Spanish." "TheRoleofConsciousness Modem Schmidt, Explicit 11 (1990): 80 (1996):34-46. AppliedLinguistics LanguageLearning." Language Joumal


The Implicit versus Explicit Division in Language ...

The Implicit versus Explicit Division in Language ...

Suggest Documents