Explicit and Implicit Language Knowledge

Question: Discuss about the Explicit and Implicit Language Knowledge. Answer: Introduction: Second language learners are more benefited from the explicit instruction as compared to the implicit instruction. In the literature, it has been mentioned that Chinese as a foreign language cannot taught unless useful cues in the orthographic forms are taught explicitly. Study comprising of native Australian English speakers demonstrated that knowledge about the semantic radicals in the initial phase of the training exhibited good results as compared to the participants with demonstration of semantic radicals in the late phase of the training (Taft Chung, 1999). These participants were presented with 24 Chinese characters and meaning pairs. In a study comprising of native American English, learners received varied explicit feedback. Learners those received hints in the form of relation between form and meaning, benefited more as compared to the learners those didnt received any type of hints. From these studies it was evident that, learners those received explicit training to apply related cues got more language acquisition (Ellis, 2005; Norris Ortega, 2000). However, it was evident that explicit learning was not useful in all aspects of foreign language learning. In case of complex grammatical systems, it was evident that implicit learners performed better as compared to the explicit learners. In these cases, explicit learners put more cognitive efforts and it results in the incorrect identification of words. Hence, there is possibility of false impression development in explicit learners and that can be carried forward for whole life. Hence, it would be difficult to decide upon superiority of explicit or implicit learning for meanings of Chinese characters. From the literature, it is evident From the results it can be seen that explicit learners performed better as compared to the implicit learners in semantically regular characters. Percentage mean accuracy obtained for explicit and implicit learners is 46.67 22.09 and 43.89 18.70 respectively. However, variability is more among the members of explicit learners as compared to the implicit learners. Implicit learners performed better as compared to the explicit learners in case of semantically irregular characters. Percentage mean accuracy obtained for explicit and implicit learners is 33.19 18.83 and 43.33 22.38 respectively. Regularity (F = 22.84) is significantly different p Results of this study showed that, participants in explicit group exhibited more accuracy as compared to the participants of implicit group in case of semantically regular Chinese characters. However, participant in the implicit group exhibited more accuracy as compared to the participants in the explicit group in case irregular Chinese characters. Hence, it is evident from this study that explicit learning didnt exhibited additional benefit for the Chinese character learning. It is evident from the study that provision of semantic cues helped participants to learn about the target characters. This reflects, these participants transferred acquired knowledge of semantic cues in the identification of cues. This idea of radicals was initially described by Craik and Lockhart (1972). In their study entitled levels of processing, they described that more the processing of stimulus, improved the learning ability. Thus participants involving semantic radicals require more processing as compa red to the participants without semantic radicals. This processing of stimulus is solely dependent on the situation and there is no theoretical basis for this processing. Shu and Anderson, (1997) described in their study that use of semantic radicals is good in native Chinese learners. In current study it is evident that these participants are native Chinese and similar results obtained for semantic radicals. In the previous studies it was found that exposure to the semantic radicals at the same time of character exposure proved better as compared to the prior exposure than characters. Hence, semantic radical and character should be set at the same time to get beneficial outcome. Literature also mentioned that application of semantic radicals at the later stage of learning would not be helpful at all. As a result, group with late radicals would be almost similar to the no radical group. It should be noted that radicals early and before groups are almost similar to the late radicals groups, if evaluation carried out after one week. However, in delayed evaluation outcome of all the groups such as early, before and late radicals are very low. In this study, radicals were taught based on structure and meaning. It helped the participants to remember characters more effectively. In the previous studies also it was established that incorporation of more parameters like pronunciation and structure are more beneficial as compared to the single parameter either structure, pronunciation or meaning. It would be helpful in forming association between semantic clue and character. In semantically regular group standard deviation is more in explicit learners as compared to the implicit learners. It reflects, members of the explicit learning group exhibited varied response. Few members might have exhibited more response as compared to the other members. Reverse is the case in semantically irregular group. In this group, implicit members exhibited more individual response differences (Dunlap et al., 2001; Taft Chung, 1999). In the literature, it was mentioned that incorporation of the semantic radicals in the learning process can lead to the confusion in understanding and learning characters. This scenario can happen in cases where similar types of semantic radicals are available for different characters. However, this confusion is less in the native Chinese learners (Feldman Siok, 1997; Taft Zhu, 1997). This study also incorporated Chinese people as learners and same results were obtained in this study. In the literature, it was evident that semantic irregular group exhibited confusion in the initial period. Same was the observation made in this study also. By virtue of this, implicit learners exhibited better results as compared to the explicit learners. In this study it was observed that explicit training helped participants to learn more Chinese characters as compared to the implicit training. There is abundant literature is available which exhibits similar type of results. Recruitment of less number of participants was one of the major drawbacks of this study. More number of participants in each group would have been helpful in more valid results. More number of participants also would have been helpful in achieving statistically significant results. If this study would have been conducted on participants of different native languages and from different geographic regions, validity of semantic radicals would have been more. Outcome of this study was evaluated within a short duration after training. However, outcome should be evaluated after gap of long duration to understand sustained effect and long term outcomes of this training. References: Craik, F. I. M., Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behauior, 11, 671-684. Dunlap, S., Perfetti, C. A., Liu, Y., Wu, S.-M. (2011). Learning vocabulary in Chinese as a foreign language: Effects of explicit instruction and semantic cue reliability.Retrieved from https://www.pitt.edu/~perfetti/PDF/DunlapLearningVocabulary.pdf Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352. Feldman, L. B., Siok, W. W. T. (1997). The role of component function in visual recognition of Chinese characters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 776-781. Norris, J., Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528. Shu, H., Anderson, R. C. (1997). Role of radical awareness in the character and word acquisition of Chinese children. Reading Research Quarterly, 32,78-89. Taft, M., Chung, K. (1999). Using radicals in teaching Chinese characters to second language learners. Psychologia, 42, 243-251. Taft, M., Zhu, X. (1997). Sub-morphemic processing in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 76I-775. Ullman, M. T. (2001). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 37-69.