Cover not available
Part of
Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages
Edited by Patrick Rebuschat
[Studies in Bilingualism 48] 2015
► pp. 117–138

Explicit knowledge about language in L2 learning

A usage-based perspective

| University of Essex

This chapter discusses explicit knowledge about language in second language (L2) learning from a usage-based perspective, which is here defined broadly to include theoretical approaches such as complexity theory, emergentism, cognitive linguistics and related constructionist theories of language. A definition of explicit and implicit knowledge and learning is provided, followed by a brief outline of the main claims of the theories included under the usage-based umbrella. Then ways of measuring explicit knowledge in L2 learning that are compatible with a usage-based perspective are presented. Drawing on the theoretical concepts introduced as well as empirical findings to date, the role of explicit knowledge in L2 learning including both benefits and limitations is detailed. Finally, suggestions for further research are put forward.

Keywords: complexity theory, Explicit knowledge and learning, instructed L2 learning, usage-based approach
Published online: 24 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.06roe
References
Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M
(2006) Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 23(3), 275–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akakura, M
(2012) Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alderson, J.C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D
(1997) Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1, 93–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J.R
(2005) Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A.D
(2000) The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A.D., & Logie, R.H
(1999) Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J.L., Christiansen, M.H., Croft, W., Ellis, N.C., et al.
(2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(s1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L., & McClelland, J.L
(2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cleeremans, A., & Destrebecqz, A
(2005) Real rules are conscious. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 19–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., White, J., Cardoso, W., & Horst, M
(2009) Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 336–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M
(2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W
(2005) Dynamic systems theory and applied linguistics: The ultimate "so what"? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 116–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R.M
(1994) How implicit can adult second language learning be? AILA Review, 11, 83–96.Google Scholar
(2005) What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(s1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesendruck, G
(2005) "Commitment" distinguishes between rules and similarity: A developmental perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 21–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z
(2009) The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elder, C., & Manwaring, D
(2004) The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness, 13(3), 145–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elder, C., Warren, J., Hajek, J., Manwaring, D., & Davies, A
(1999) Metalinguistic knowledge: How important is it in studying a language at university? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 81–95.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C
(1993) Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 289–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Consciousness in second language learning: Psychological perspectives on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition. AILA Review, 11, 37–56.Google Scholar
(2001) Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002a) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002b) Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 297–340.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) The associative-cognitive CREED. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 77–95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2011) Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R.P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 35–47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C., & Larsen-Freeman, D
(2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R
(2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S.W
(2009) Constructing another language: Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M
(2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G.A., & Roehr, K
(2011) Use of L1, metalanguage, and discourse markers: L2 learners' regulation during individual task performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 297–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J.M., & DeKeyser, R.M
(2001) Explaining the "natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition" in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, P.S., & Hecht, K
(1992) Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 168–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J.A
(2005) Rules and similarity - a false dichotomy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howe, M.L., & Lewis, M.D
(2005) The importance of dynamic systems approaches for understanding development. Developmental Review, 25, 247–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, G
(2011) Metalinguistic knowledge, metalanguage, and their relationship in L2 learners. System, 39(1), 63–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J.H
(2005) Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 129–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J.H., & de Graaff, R
(1994) Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.Google Scholar
Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A
(1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M
(2000) Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. vii–xxviii). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1998) Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–64). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D
(1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L
(2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macaro, E., & Masterman, L
(2006) Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference? Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 297–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markman, A.B., Blok, S., Kom, K., Larkey, L., Narvaez, L.R., Stilwell, C.H., et al.
(2005) Digging beneath rules and similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 29–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N.P
(1998) Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A.F. Healy & L.E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.L
(2004) The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, R
(1994) English grammar in use (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L
(2001) Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(1), 157–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, E.R., & Deary, I.J
(2006) Examining the wholistic-analytic style using preferences in early information processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, E.R., Deary, I.J., & Austin, E.J
(2003) The reliability of Riding's Cognitive Style Analysis test. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 881–891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pothos, E.M
(2005) The rules versus similarity distinction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renou, J.M
(2000) Learner accuracy and learner performance: The quest for a link. Foreign Language Annals, 33(2), 168–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riding, R.J
(2001) The nature and effects of cognitive style. In R.J. Sternberg & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Riding, R.J., & Cheema, I
(1991) Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 193–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P
(1997) Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, K
(2013) The developmental trajectory in instructed L2 learning: A case study. Paper presented at the SELC Conference 'Thinking, doing, learning: Usage-based perspectives on second language learning', Odense, Denmark, 24-26 April 2013.
Roehr, K
(2006) Metalinguistic knowledge in L2 task performance: A verbal protocol analysis. Language Awareness, 15(3), 180–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008a) Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 67–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 173–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a) The development of metalinguistic awareness and oral L2 proficiency: A longitudinal case study. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics, Concordia University Montréal, 1-3 June 2010.
(2012) Theoretical foundations. In A. Tellier (Ed.), Esperanto as a starter language for child second-language learners in the primary school (pp. 19–22). Stoke-on-Trent: Esperanto UK.Google Scholar
Roehr, K., & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G.A
(2009a) Metalinguistic knowledge: A stepping stone towards L2 proficiency? In A. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 79–94). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2009b) The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning. Language Awareness, 18(2), 165–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E
(1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B
(1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, P., & Cinciała, M
(2011) Explicit grammar rules and L2 acquisition. ELT Journal, 65(1), 13–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.W
(1990) The role of consciousness in SLA learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S
(2005) Avoiding foolish consistency. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 33–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, E.E
(2005) Rule and similarity as prototype concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 34–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y
(2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M
(2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal cse study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M
(1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C.J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swan, M
(1995) Practical English usage (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.R
(1998) Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (Vol. 1, pp. 177–202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tellier, A., & Roehr-Brackin, K
(2013a) The development of language learning aptitude and metalinguistic awareness in primary-school children: A classroom study. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 62(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
(2013b) Metalinguistic awareness in children with differing language learning experience. EuroSLA Yearbook, 13, 81–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E., & Bates, E
(2003) Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science, 6(4), 378–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thepseenu, B., & Roehr, K
(2013) University-level learners' beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge. In K. Roehr & G.A. Gánem-Gutiérrez (Eds.), The metalinguistic dimension in instructed L2 learning (pp. 95–117). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 183–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J
(1996) An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
van Geert, P
(2007) Dynamic systems in second language learning: Some general methodological reflections. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 47–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziętek, A.A., & Roehr, K
(2011) Metalinguistic knowledge and cognitive style in Polish classroom learners of English. System, 39(4), 417–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Alonso-Aparicio, Irene
2018. Chapter 7. The impact of prior knowledge on second language grammar practice. In Usage-inspired L2 Instruction [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 49], ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Toropainen, Outi, Sinikka Lahtinen & Anne-Maj Åberg
2020. Metaspråklig kunskap i andraspråksskribenters reflektioner. Nordand 15:2 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
VanPatten, Bill & Megan Smith
2022. Explicit and Implicit Learning in Second Language Acquisition, DOI logo
Wijaya, David & Evelyn Winstin
2021. Investigating Indonesian EFL learners’ knowledge and use of English causative constructions. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 march 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.