Seite 29 [29]
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
implicit knowledge, it can only be transformed into explicit knowledge through
conscious reflection on ones implicit knowledge.
The main argument against the non-interface position was the overempha¬
sis on fluency, as even though learners in immersion programs are exposed to
a plethora of L2 input which enables them to improve their fluency, accuracy
is also of great importance when it comes to communication because learners
also need to produce comprehensible output, which ultimately requires a
certain degree of accuracy (Swain 1985). Furthermore, Schmidt (2001), in his
noticing hypothesis, underlined the role of attention to form in SLA and claimed
that “SLA is largely driven by what learners pay attention to and what they
understand of the significance of the noticed input to be” (Schmidt 2001: 3-4).
This is one of the reasons the non-interface position is no longer supported by
most researchers, as attention plays a significant role in second language ac¬
quisition.
As opposed to the non-interface position, the strong interface position holds
that explicit knowledge can be derived from implicit knowledge and can also
be turned into implicit knowledge (Ellis 2009). Ellis explains this by pointing
out that
[IJearners can first learn a rule as a declarative fact and, then, by dint of practising
the use of this rule, can convert it into an implicit representation, although this
need not entail (initially, at least) the loss of the original explicit representation.
(Ellis 2009: 21)
The strong interface position — as opposed to the weak interface position — also
intends to develop conscious knowledge of L2, which means that the different
linguistic forms should be learned and, more importantly, taught explicitly
(Schwartz 1993). This position assumes that there is direct interaction between
explicit and implicit learning and thus between implicit and explicit knowledge,
too, and L2 learning takes place through a conscious and explicit focus on L2
linguistic forms. The strong interface position promotes the so-called PPP
(present-practice-produce) method, where 1) the targeted structure is pre¬
sented through explicit instruction, then 2) the structure is practiced by the
learners, and this is followed by 3) the producing stage of the structure, when
learners can put their knowledge into practice (cf. Hedge 2000, Ur 1996). Pro¬
ponents of this position claim that through practice and drills, successful
learning may be achieved (DeKeyser 1998). However, similarly to the non¬
interface position, the strong interface position has also received criticism over
the years, mainly because of its strong emphasis on form and giving little room
for fluency. As for extramural English activities, this position is not necessar¬
ily a viable option, as this position assumes formal instruction, which is not
necessarily involved when learning L2 through EE activities.
+ 27e