Explicit Versus Implicit Grammar

Knowledge
HELEN BASTURKMEN

The development of grammatical proficiency is generally acknowledged to be a key

task for the language learner and consequently grammar teaching plays a central
role in numerous language-teaching classrooms across the world. Conventionally,
many TESOL teachers have used an explicit approach to grammar instruction in
which learners’ attention is drawn to grammar rules and explanations. There has
been considerable discussion over recent decades about the role of explicit gram-
mar instruction in learning a second or foreign language and how explicit knowl-
edge might interact with implicit knowledge in the process of learning to use a
language. This entry examines the key terms of explicit and implicit grammar
instruction and the related terms of explicit versus implicit learning and knowl-
edge. It considers an important topic for language teaching practitioners, namely
the role of explicit grammar knowledge in learning a second or foreign language.

­Framing the Issue

Historically, descriptions of TESOL teaching have highlighted an explicit approach

to grammar instruction. Explicit versus implicit approaches to grammar instruc-
tion became a prominent topic of discussion in the field once Krashen (1982) drew
a key distinction between two learning processes, which he termed acquisition and
learning. Acquisition was defined as naturalistic learning that creates the kind of
implicit knowledge used in spontaneous second language production. Learning
(formal learning) was understood to lead to knowledge about the language, which,
although of limited use for spontaneous language use, could play a role in moni-
toring language production (Loewen & Reinders, 2011). This distinction led to
discussions about the role of explicit instruction, which, historically, had often
dominated classroom grammar instruction.
In explicit grammar instruction the teacher draws learners’ attention to spe-
cific grammatical features or patterns, with the intention of making students

The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching.

Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini; Volume Editor: Hossein Nassasji).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0060

eelt0060.indd 1 4/24/2018 4:04:53 PM

 2 Explicit Versus Implicit Grammar Knowledge

master them. This kind of instruction often includes the overt presentation of
grammar rules, which students are expected to understand. The teacher might
use a deductive approach to explicit grammar instruction, in which a grammar
rule or explanation is initially provided, then followed by examples—say, a text
that contains multiple iterations of the item or a set of sentences that illustrate it;
this road goes from the rule to examples. Or the teacher might opt for an induc-
tive approach, in which learners are first presented with a sample of language—
say, a text or a set of sentences that contain the targeted grammatical item—then
directed to an activity that prompts them to generate or discover the rule them-
selves; this road goes from examples to the rule. In either case, the aim is to draw
the learners’ conscious attention to the targeted grammatical item. A limitation
commonly associated with this type of instruction, whether achieved deduc-
tively or inductively, is that, although learners might gain knowledge of a set of
grammar rules, they still may not be able to use the language competently in
communication.
Generally, explicit instruction is expected to lead to explicit learning and knowl-
edge. Explicit knowledge is knowledge people know they have and are aware of
using (Williams, 2009; Rebuschat & Williams, 2013), although they might not yet
be able to verbalize it (Rebuschat & Williams, 2013). Explicit grammar knowledge
is knowledge about grammar, or factual knowledge. It is this conscious under-
standing of grammar—the “analyzed” grammatical knowledge (Macaro &
Masterman, 2006, p. 299)—that learners would draw on in a planning phase
(Véronique, 2013). Often they can verbalize this kind of knowledge. The learner
can demonstrate this conscious awareness of a grammatical item by recognizing a
sentence as being ungrammatical and by being able to explain why (Ellis, 2006). A
learner may be able to state that an s is needed on a verb when it is used in the
present tense with a third-person subject (Erlam, 2013).
In implicit instruction the teacher sets up a context in which learners can learn
experientially by communicating in the target language: that is, while they are
focused on meaning or on the message. This method aims to provide the condi-
tions in which learners may infer rules without awareness. Generally, implicit
instruction is expected to lead to implicit knowledge, which is the main type of
knowledge drawn upon in spontaneous oral production (Loewen & Reinders,
2011). Implicit knowledge can be defined as unconscious knowledge—in other
words, knowledge that people are usually not aware they possess (Rebuschat &
Williams, 2013) and cannot verbalize. Implicit knowledge is sometimes referred to
as proceduralized knowledge and is considered to be more “deeply embedded”
than explicit knowledge (Ellis, 2006, p. 433).
Implicit knowledge is tacit. Native speakers who are fluent in the language
may, for example, be able to immediately recognize a grammatical irregularity but
may not be able to explain the grammatical rule behind it and may not know how
they acquired their knowledge of the grammatical structure (Williams, 2009).
Learners, too, may draw on this type of knowledge to make grammaticality judg-
ments, although they might not be able to explain the basis of such judgments
(Loewen & Reinders, 2011).

eelt0060.indd 2 4/24/2018 4:04:53 PM

 Explicit Versus Implicit Grammar Knowledge 3

Children develop implicit knowledge of their first language by engaging in

communicative events. They acquire complex knowledge structures about the
language through exposure to linguistic input data and by interacting in language
events. They acquire this knowledge without any need for explicit grammatical
rules and explanations. However, for adults who learn a second language, the situ-
ation appears to be very different. Even when adult learners have many opportu-
nities to acquire the language naturally, they often fail to attain high levels of
grammatical competence (Ellis, 2002). It appears that the amount that such learn-
ers can acquire implicitly from communicative contexts is generally fairly limited,
given the extent of native-speaker norms. For adult second language learners to
gain a second language, extra explicit learning resources are generally required
(N. Ellis, 2008).
The processes and products of learning need to be distinguished (Ellis, 2009).
Implicit learning processes are those in which learning occurs without the learn-
er’s intention or awareness. Although learners may not be aware of the learning
that has occurred, learning is evident in their language behaviors or responses
(Ellis, 2009). Implicit learning may generally produce implicit knowledge, but it
could also result in explicit knowledge. For example, the learner may become
spontaneously aware of a pattern in a sample of language input. Explicit learning
processes are those in which deliberate learning occurs with awareness. These
processes may generally produce explicit knowledge but could also lead to implicit
knowledge. For example, through practice, the learner’s explicit knowledge may
become automatized and used without awareness (Williams, 2009).

­Making the Case

Both implicit and explicit forms of instruction have been found to be beneficial for
learning. However, while implicit instruction can be beneficial, explicit instruction
is often considered more effective (Loewen & Reinders, 2011).
A key consideration for researchers working in this area is the design of tasks
that should measure explicit and implicit knowledge. Careful consideration is
needed, as the relationship between how knowledge is acquired and how it is
demonstrated is a complex one. For example, a learner cannot be considered to
lack explicit knowledge just because s/he does not have the necessary metalan-
guage (linguistic terminology) to express or demonstrate knowledge of a gram-
matical feature. Metalinguistic knowledge and linguistic proficiency are distinct
aspects of linguistic ability (Macaro & Masterman, 2006).
Erlam (2009) discusses the design of tasks intended to measure learners’ implicit
and explicit knowledge. Two examples reported by Erlam were a timed computer-
ized grammaticality judgment task in which learners had just a few seconds to
indicate whether sentences were grammatical or not, and an untimed version of
the same task. The timed task was expected to predispose learners to drawing on
their implicit knowledge, whereas the untimed task was expected to predispose
them to drawing on both their implicit and their explicit knowledge. But, as Erlam

eelt0060.indd 3 4/24/2018 4:04:53 PM

 4 Explicit Versus Implicit Grammar Knowledge

notes, although a measurement task may be carefully designed to influence learn-

ers to draw on one type of knowledge rather than another, there can be no guaran-
tee that they will do so.
An important theoretical consideration is whether second language acquisition
is—very largely—implicit or explicit or involves both implicit and explicit learn-
ing. Some scholars, such as Krashen (1982), have argued that second language
acquisition is primarily implicit and that explicit learning plays a supportive role
only. Few believe that second language acquisition is largely explicit, as explicit
processes are relatively cumbersome (VanPatten & Benati, 2010).
Views vary on the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge. The
interface position refers to the notion that both types of knowledge interact in the
long-term memory. The non-interface position suggests that explicit knowledge
cannot become implicit. Other positions claim that it can. The strong interface posi-
tion suggests that explicit knowledge can be derived from implicit knowledge and
that, through practice, explicit knowledge can be transformed into implicit knowl-
edge. The weak interface position suggests that it is possible for explicit knowledge
to become implicit in restricted circumstances. One version of the weak interface
position suggests that explicit knowledge of a linguistic form can be converted into
implicit knowledge through practice, but only when learners are developmentally
ready to acquire that particular form (Ellis, 2009).

­Pedagogical Implications

Matters of the interface issue are of key importance not only at a theoretical level
but also at the practical level of language pedagogy (Ellis, 2009). The question
whether explicit instruction can lead to implicit as well as explicit knowledge is an
important one for teachers, as the goal of instruction is usually for learners to
become able to use grammatical forms with ease in their communications. There
are few situations in which the end goal is for learners to have factual knowledge
of grammatical rules but not to be able to use the grammatical forms readily in
spontaneous communication. Can explicitly taught grammar become automatic,
so that learners may use it to understand and produce language “without constant
recourse to the rules” that generated the explicit knowledge in the first instance
(Macaro & Masterman, 2006, p. 299)?
Many teachers are familiar with presentation–practice–production (PPP)
instructional routines. There are overlaps between this sequence and a strong
interface position. The presentation stage often aims to help learners understand a
grammar item (explicit knowledge); the practice stage aims to help them consoli-
date this understanding and at the same time develop the ability to use the item
more automatically. Important theoretical and practical pedagogical questions
concern the extent and type of practice needed for the transition from knowing
about a grammar item to being able to use it automatically. Can the practice be a
mechanical one, in which learners are led to focus on manipulating the

eelt0060.indd 4 4/24/2018 4:04:53 PM

 Explicit Versus Implicit Grammar Knowledge 5

grammatical form? Or should it be communicative practice, in which learners are

focused on exchanging meaning (Ellis, 2009)?
The explanation of grammar rules is a well-known means of implementing a
deductive approach to explicit instruction. A number of other instructional options
are available, however. These include fairly traditional options, such as the use of
contrastive analysis (comparison of the feature of interest in L1 and L2) and the
use of labeling and classifying sentence components. They also include less well
known options, such as provision of a grammatical explanation (by the teacher or
textbook) followed by asking learners to verbalize their understanding of the rule
so as to make learning visible and enable the teacher to check for incomplete
understandings (Erlam, 2013). Consciousness raising and noticing activities are
commonly used in an inductive approach.
Explicit grammar instruction does not occur only during the introduction of
grammar (i.e., during the presentation of a new language) but at any stage in the
learning sequence. For example, the teacher might use an explicit approach in pro-
viding feedback on a learner’s production. If a learner makes a grammatical error,
the teacher might respond by providing an explanation of the grammar point; or
the teacher might use an implicit approach by making a recast (i.e., a reformula-
tion of the erroneous utterance in order to improve grammatical accuracy while
retaining the original meaning expressed by the learner) without directing the
learner to attend consciously to the grammar point in question.
Some teachers may be less familiar with ways of implementing implicit instruc-
tion. Teaching of this nature can take the form of nondirective interventions, such
as providing language input and leaving learners to internalize any underlying
rules or patterns without explicitly focusing their attention on them. Or it can take
the form of directive interventions, such as providing a learning environment that
has been “enriched” with a target structure (i.e., with multiple examples of the
structure in samples of language data)—again, without drawing learners’ explicit
attention to the structure (Ellis, 2009, pp. 16–17).
Of practical concern to teachers is the question of the situations in which implicit
or explicit approaches to instruction would be suitable. Evidence from research
suggests that grammar explanation (the explicit approach) might be more effective
for certain groups of learners. These include older and mature learners, more aca-
demically advanced learners, and learners with high abilities in language analysis
who naturally infer rules and form generalizations about language regularities.
Children, on the other hand, mainly learn implicitly. Thus an explicit approach
may be less suitable for these learners (Erlam, 2013).
Finally, teachers need to bear in mind that, although learners may have explicit
knowledge of a grammatical rule, they may not be able to articulate that knowl-
edge. Learners, especially those at lower levels of proficiency, may not have a meta-
linguistic competence (i.e., ability to use language about language) that is sufficiently
developed to enable them to formulate grammatical rules and explanations.

SEE ALSO: Implicit Versus Explicit Grammar Feedback

eelt0060.indd 5 4/24/2018 4:04:53 PM

 6 Explicit Versus Implicit Grammar Knowledge

References

Ellis, N. (2008). Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In J. Cenoz & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 6: Knowledge about language
(2nd ed., pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Springer.
Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum.
In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The
differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3),
431–63.
Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In R. Ellis, S.
Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in
second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–25). Bristol, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Erlam, R. (2009). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In R.
Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit
knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 31–64). Bristol, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Erlam, R. (2013). Explicit knowledge and grammar explanation in second language
instruction. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford, England:
Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal.0404
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, England:
Pergamon.
Loewen, S., & Reinders, H. (2011). Key concepts in second language acquisition. Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Macaro, E., & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all
the difference? Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 297–327.
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2013). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In
C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. doi:10.1002/9781405198431
wbeal0529
VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. G. (2010). Key terms in second language acquisition. London,
England: Continuum.
Véronique, G. D. (2013). Acquisition and teaching. In M. Byram & A. Hu (Eds.), Routledge
encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 4–6). London, England: Routledge.
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T.
K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–53). Bingley,
England: Emerald Press.

Suggested Reading

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit
knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol, England: Multilingual
Matters.

eelt0060.indd 6 4/24/2018 4:04:53 PM