Seite 28 [28]
EXTRAMURAL ENGLISH ACTIVITIES AND INDIVIDUAL LEARNER DIFFERENCES
based on this distinction, he formed the implicit and the explicit learning
hypotheses. He claims that implicit learning hypothesis "would hold that the
meaning of a new word is acquired totally unconsciously as a result of abstrac¬
tion from repeated exposures in a range of activated contexts” (N. Ellis 1994:
219). So, in the case of implicit learning, learners are not aware that learning
has taken place and, for this reason, cannot verbalize what they have learned
and how they have learned it. In contrast, explicit learning refers to the kind
of learning which takes place consciously, i.e., the learner is aware of the fact
that they are learning and is able to verbalize what linguistic element they have
learned and how.
The distinction between implicit learning (and knowledge) and explicit
learning (and knowledge) is explained by the interface issue (Ellis 2009). The
interface issue aims to determine to what extent and how implicit and ex¬
plicit knowledge are related; how explicit knowledge becomes and facilitates
the acquisition of implicit knowledge if it does at all; and finally, to what extent
explicit instruction facilitates the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge.
There have been three propositions for finding answers to these problems (El¬
lis 2009): the non-interface position, the strong interface position and the weak
interface position.
The non-interface position is based on research findings showing the differ¬
ent inquisitional mechanisms taking place when acquiring implicit and ex¬
plicit knowledge in a second language (Hulstijn 2002, Krashen 1982). Research
shows that these different types of knowledge are stored in different parts of
the brain (Paradis 2009), and are retrieved through different processes, sug¬
gesting that they may be retrieved automatically or in a controlled manner
(Ellis 1993). The non-interface position, therefore, holds that explicit knowledge
cannot be directly turned into implicit knowledge, and implicit knowledge
cannot be turned into explicit knowledge either. Based on this notion, in com¬
municative language teaching, for instance, fluency was preferred over accu¬
racy because, based on the non-interface position, it was assumed that knowl¬
edge learned implicitly, rather than explicitly, can contribute to general
fluency more (Krashen 1982), i.e., explicitly acquiring the grammatical rules
of an L2 can never result in a learner being able to communicate fluently with¬
out spending an excessive amount of time finding the correct grammatical
structures to be able to express themselves. Therefore, content-based and L2
immersion programs emphasized fluency rather than accuracy in the given L2
(Harley—Swain 1984, Swain 1985), as explicit grammatical rules were consid¬
ered less important. In the extramural English context, however, extramural
English activities may provide a great deal of input, similar to L2 immersion
programs where learners are exposed to a particular L2 excessively with hopes
of acquiring as much of it as possible. Here, even if a learner acquires
+ 26 +