Seite 28 [28]
OCR
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 abstraction 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 explicit 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 (Ellis 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 different inquisitional mechanisms taking place when acquiring implicit and explicit 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, suggesting 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 communicative language teaching, for instance, fluency was preferred over accuracy because, based on the non-interface position, it was assumed that knowledge 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 without 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 considered 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 +
