Mar. 2008, Volume 6, No.3 (Serial No.

54)

US -China Foreign Language, ISSN1539-8080, USA

On formal explicit and implicit grammar instruction

LI Xiao-fei1, TIAN Tian21
(1. School of Foreign Studies, Shandong University of Finance, Jinan 250014, China;
2. Foreign Affairs Office, Shandong Institute of Education, Jinan 250013, China)

Abstract: In the field of SLA, the explicit-implicit dimension has long been one of the controversial issues
and focuses for researchers. It provides relatively fresh theoretical as well as empirical view angle to formal
grammar instruction. This paper overviews both theories of explicit-implicit issues and empirical studies on
formal explicit and implicit grammar teaching, and presents some issues that require to be noticed and attached
much importance to this kind of studies, expecting to provide some help to the future research and to the real
classroom
Key words: explicit; implicit; grammar instruction

1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, grammar instruction has long been a controversial issue in the field of second
language and foreign language acquisition. It has been of great interest to researchers and teachers that whether
grammar should be taught and how to teach grammar if it is necessary. Focused on these two key questions,
grammar instruction has undergone its ups and downs through many linguistic schools and pedagogical
approaches, in the process of which the necessity of grammar instruction is no longer the focus, and the
explicit-implicit dimension in grammar teaching has received more attention. Many empirical studies have
investigated that which method is better for grammar teaching, explicit or implicit (Scott, 1989; ZHOU, 1989;
Scott, 1990; GAO & DAI, 2004; TIAN, 2005; XIA, 2005) and whether there is an interface between explicit
grammatical knowledge and implicit grammatical knowledge (ZHOU, 1989; Green & Hetch, 1992; GAO & DAI,
2004).
As Hulstijn (2005) said, there are good theoretical reasons to place matters of implicit and explicit issues,
including implicit and explicit knowledge, learning and instruction, high on the agenda for Second Language
Acquisition (SLA) research. As for the second language and foreign language learners, teachers and researchers,
they would like to know why there are universal success in the case of L1 acquisition and differential success in
the case of L2 acquisition. Scholars working in different disciplines or in different theoretical schools have argued
that L1 acquisition relies principally on processes of implicit learning, whereas the acquisition of an L2 often
relies on both implicit learning and explicit learning. Different theories tried to explore the process of second
language learning, among which Krashens Monitor Model and Bialystoks Theory of L2 Learning contrasted
greatly. In Krashens Monitor Theory he distinguished acquisition and learning, the distinction of which
mirrors the implicit/explicit distinction(Ellis, 1999). He argued that although second language (L2) learners
might be exposed to explicit rules in classrooms and textbooks, they rely on implicit knowledge and implicit
LI Xiao-fei , professor of School of Foreign Studies, Shandong University of Finance; research fields: pragmatics, applied
linguistics.
TIAN Tian, teaching assistant of Foreign Affairs Office, Shandong Institute of Education; research field: applied linguistics.
54

On formal explicit and implicit grammar instruction

processing to comprehend L2 inputs, and that there was no interface between explicit and implicit knowledge.
According to this, teaching seems to be not necessary and if we accept Krashens contrast between learning and
acquisition, we can banish explicit grammatical instruction from the classroom (MacWhinney, 1997).
Biolystoks model of second language learning acknowledged that it is possible to know some things about a
language explicitly, and others only implicitly(Stern, 1999). Her model also claimed that there is an interaction
between explicit and implicit knowledge and both can be developed, which implied that second language can be
teachable, and formal practic ing enables explicit knowledge to become implicit, while inferencing allows explicit
to be derived from implicit(Ellis, 1999).

2. Empirical studies on explicit/implicit grammar instruction and discussions

The last two decades in the SLA field has witnessed a thriving of empirical studies on explicit and implicit
instruction, and the contents of these instructions are mainly grammar. The focuses of these studies are (a) the
comparison of the effect by explicit/implicit instruction, and (b) attempt to prove an interface position between
explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge. Of many related empirical studies, seven (Scott, 1989; ZHOU, 1989;
Scott, 1990; Green & Hetch, 1992; GAO & DAI, 2004; TIAN, 2005; XIA, 2005) are picked out to be included in
the next discussion. As for this sort of study, the target structure (what you teach), the instruction process (how
you teach) and the testing instruments (how you evaluate the teaching effect) are the key aspects of the experiment
design that determine whether the study is reasonable and reliable. However, even if all the factors within the
design have been comprehensively considered, in addition to the effectiveness of the method itself, the success of
implicit or explicit methods might also depend on several factors as follows.
2.1 The type and complexity of target structures
Several researchers have hypothesized that the effectiveness of instruction depends on differences in
structure complexity (Krashen, 1981; Green & Hetch, 1992; Ellis, 1999; Andringa, 2005). Krashen (1981) has
claimed that complex rules can only be learned implicitly, and a series of studies conducted by Reber (cited in
Ellis, 1999) indicates that explicit instruction works when the material to be learnt is relatively simple, but not
when it is complex. Complexity can be described in terms of formal and functional complexity. Formal
complexity refers to the number of operations that have to be performed in order to use the rule correctly.
Functional complexity refers to the relationship between meaning and form. If this relationship is straightforward
and transparent, then the structure can be considered functionally simple. DeKeyser (cited in Andringa, 2005) also
provides definitions: a structure may be formally complex when it requires complex processing operations, and it
may be functionally complex when the relation between form and function is opaque. However, DeKeyser further
points out that there is little agreement on how this works out in practice. Taken these into consideration, the
results showed by the studies of Scott (1989), ZHOU Yan-ping (1989) and XIA Zhang-hong (2005) can be
explained. In Scotts study, one of the target structures is at the word level and also meets with the explicit group
learnersprior knowledge, which leads to their better performance. In ZHOUs study, the three target structures
are of formal and functional complexity to Grade Eight students; therefore the explicit instruction may receive an
unobvious effect. And this is true to XIAs study as well whose target structures are all syntactic ones. If the target
structures in one experiment are all simple ones, or complex ones, this feature probably advantage or disadvantage
only one particular teaching method of the two. Therefore, it would be more convincing to take in one study both
simple and complex target structures and to make comparison between the effects of instruction methods

55

On formal explicit and implicit grammar instruction

according to the difference in structure type and complexity.

2.2 The equality of input
For any experimental study on instruction other than those in explicit and implicit ways mentioned above,
how the instruction is conducted is no doubt a critical procedure that relates to the success of the experiment.
Putting the duration and intensity of the instruction aside, there is a question that must be considered in the design
of explicit/implicit grammar studies, that is, how to make sure the input received by the two treatment groups are
relatively equal. As explicit instruction do not lead to explicit learning only, it may lead to concomitant implicit
learning effects as well (Andringa, 2005), the input in the experimental conditions should be matched as precisely
as possible, which means that the same input sentences should be used to create either an explicit or implicit focus
on the target structures. It is difficult and impossible to accomplish this, though, since explicit and implicit
instructions differ greatly, and experimental conditions usually have lots of practical limitations for doing so.
However, there are some details concerning to the equality of input that can be realized in the experiment, for
instance, the grammar rule explanation is always an important and necessary means used in explicit instruction,
but it may cause unequal exposure since the implicit treatment group dont receive any rule explanation. To make
up for this inequality, extra input instead of rule explanation, such as implicit feedback or exercises can be
provided to implicit instruction group. This way, the number of times that participants in the explicit and implicit
instruction conditions encountered the target structures can be more or less equal.
2.3 The measurement of explicit and implicit knowledge
A problem facing investigations of implicit and explicit learning is the lack of valid measures of second
language implicit and explicit knowledge (Ellis, 2004). This is also a question facing to empirical studies of
explicit and implicit grammar teaching. Various test instruments were used by different studies to measure the
explicit and implicit knowledge as output of learners, but are they valid enough to reach the expectation? Take the
study of Green and Hetch (1992) for example, they used sentence-correction and rule-verbalization as to measure
the explicit and implicit knowledge of learners according to their performances. As Ellis (2005) pointed out, to
verbalize rules, learners must have at least some productive metalanguage and the ability to provide clear
explanations of abstract phenomena, while learners explicit knowledge exists independently of both the
metalanguage they know and their ability to explain rules. Likewise, the fill-in-the-blank exercises, the testing
instrument in the study of Scott (1990), might invite the use of explicit knowledge, but it does not guarantee it, as
learners are obviously able to complete the exercise by drawing on their implicit knowledge (Ellis, 2005).
Therefore, the effective ways of measuring explicit and implicit outputs are needed to be well recognized and
unified. Ellis (2002, 2004, 2005) in his serial studies pointed out that explicit knowledge tests should call on the
learnersknowledge about the rules of the second language. Conversely, tests of implicit knowledge have to be
unfocused and serving a communicative purpose. He provided five types of tests, among which the untimed
grammaticality judgment test (GJT), and metalinguistic knowledge test are measurements of explicit knowledge;
with regard to implicit knowledge, he advocated that spontaneous production tasks were probably the best means
of elicitation.
2.4 The natural orders and individual differences
In addition to the study design itself, some researchers also agree that the natural orders of acquisition and
individual differences are among other problems that may affect the result of this kind of study. Natural orders
may limit the potential effectiveness of formal instruction in that instruction would only be effective if the second
language learner is sensitive to it, or he possess the developmental readiness to it. If a learner is not
56

On formal explicit and implicit grammar instruction

developmentally ready to learn a structure, or a structure is beyond greatly the learner s current phase along his
natural order of acquisition, he can hardly master the target structure, no matter which teaching method is used.
However, the theory of natural order is not perfect enough to describe the acquisition order of all the grammar
structures in details, nor is little known yet about what parts of language develop in a fixed order, this factor is
usually overlooked by most researchers in their experimental studies.
As for individual differences, the most influential factor that is often considered in the study of
explicit/implicit instruction is age. It is widely hypothesized that older learners may require explicit information to
successfully learn a second language, while young learners can do without and can learn languages entirely
implicitly. Back to the six studies mentioned at the beginning of this section (excluding the one conducted by
Green and Hetch, for they did not have a real instructional process), five of them took adults as the teaching
subjects, and one teenagers. When evaluating these studiesresults, this age difference as well as the disparity in
explicit/implicit learning abilities caused by it had better not be forgotten.

3. Conclusion
Recently, studies on explicit/implicit related issues remain popular topics. Previous empirical studies provide
both experience and lessons, and the following studies along this direction should have better and more improved
methodology. Though the theoretical arguments on implicit and explicit issues continue, now we hear more and
more a new voice of combination of the two among teachers in their practical daily teaching. In China in the past
few decades, both English learnersprocess and teachersinstruction mainly follow an explicit way. In recent
years in contrast, the role of implicit learning and instruction and the distinction between implicit and explicit
learning and instruction have been widely recognized, and implicit instruction has been actively investigated and
advocated. Now the studentsEnglish textbooks in primary school and even in middle school stress greatly on the
listening, reading and communication capability, whose organization appears more implicit, as the rate of explicit
grammar explanations and exercises decrease. However, the complex and multifaceted interaction between the
implicit and the explicit and the importance of this interaction have not been universally recognized. To a large
extent, such interaction has been downplayed or ignored, with only a few notable exceptions. The important
implication of the interaction between implicit and explicit instruction is teachers should first make learners have
an implicit knowledge base before learning complicated task, then be trying to establish explicit task model. In
one word, the most ideal teaching model needs two kinds of procedures (implicit and explicit ones). Future studies
will focus when and how to use implicit knowledge and instruction as well as explicit ones in an integrated way.
References:
Andringa, S. Form-focused instruction and the development of second language proficiency. (Doctorial dissertation). Available from:
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/arts/2005/s.j.andringa/c1.pdf.
Ellis, R. 1999. The study of second language acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. 2002. Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, (2), 223-236.
Ellis, R. 2004. The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, (54), 227-275.
Ellis, R. 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, (27), 141-172.
GAO Hai-ying & DAI Man-chun. 2004. The acquisition of relative clause extraposition by Chinese learners of English: A study of
the effects of explicit/implicit instruction. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (Bimonthly), (6), 45-51.
Green, P. & Hecht, K. 1992. Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, (13), 168-184.

57

On formal explicit and implicit grammar instruction

Hulstijn, J. H. 2005. Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, (27), 129-140.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Scott, V.M. 1989. An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. The Modern Language Journal, (1),
14-22.
Scott, V.M. 1990. Explicit and implicit grammar teaching strategies: New empirical data. The French Review, (5), 779-789.
Stern, H.H. 1999. The explicit-implicit dimension. In: P. Allen & R. Harley. (Eds.), Issues and options in language teaching.
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 327-348.
TIAN Jin-ping. 2005. An experimental study on implicit English grammar teaching. Journal of Shanxi Teachers University: Social
Science Edition, (3), 143-145.
Whinney, B.M. 1997. Implicit and explicit processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, (19), 277-281.
XIA Zhang-hong. 2005. The effectiveness of different grammar instructions. CELEA Journal (Bimonthly), (1), 23-28.
ZHOU Yan-ping. 1989. The effect of explicit instruction on the acquisition of the English grammatical structure by Chinese learners.
CUHK Papers in Linguistics, (1), 70-104. Available from http://eric.ed.gov.

(Edited by Doris and Stella)

58