Delphi module

2.3.3.3
Can't learning influence acquisition and vice versa?

Krashen claims that the knowledge generated by explicit learning and by implicit acquisition remains forever separate (see section 2.3.2). But is it really impossible to use learned knowledge in the fluent performance of a skill? You may remember that Anderson and Finchman (see 2.2.1.5) claim that declarative knowledge is the 'main avenue' for the development of procedural (skill) knowledge: is second language development really so different from the development of other complex skills in that declarative knowledge cannot be proceduralized? While we would probably all agree that learners perform differently in tasks where they have time to use language deliberately and consciously, as opposed to tasks which require fluent performance, that does not necessarily have to imply two different types of knowledge which are totally separate. Many language learners can remember being taught a construction in class, practising it and then gradually being able to use it fluently.

Furthermore, can't explicit 'learning' influence implicit 'acquisition'? It seems to be a general feature of human learning that we notice things more when we already have a framework for noticing them. Can't our explicit learning provide a framework for our implicit acquisition? Learners who have first studied a language in a classroom and then spend time in the target language country often report that the target language quickly 'fits together': surely their classroom learning counts for something in this?

Reflective Task 19

Read through the following extracts from an American (L1 English) learner, who was learning Portuguese both in a class and outside in interaction with colleagues during a five-month stay in Rio de Janeiro.

In what way could the extracts be seen as a challenge to Krashen's claim that learning does not influence acquisition, and cannot be the knowledge source for fluent production?

Journal entry, week 6
This week (in class) we were introduced to and drilled on the imperfect. Very useful! The basic contrast seems straightforward enough ontem eu fui ao clube (yesterday, I went to the club) vs. antigamente eu ia ao clube (formerly, I used to go to the club). L (the teacher) gave us a third model: ontem eu ia ao clube, (yesterday, I was going to the club ... but I didn't), which L says is a common way of making excuses. [...] Wednesday night A came over to play cards, and the first things he said was: eu ia telefonar para você (I was going to call you), exactly the kind of excuse L had said we could expect. I noticed that his speech was full of the imperfect, which I never heard (or understood) before, and during the evening I managed to produce quite a few myself, without hesitating much. Very satisfying!

Journal entry, week 21
I've reached a new take-off point and I wish I weren't leaving in 10 days. The main thing that's happened is that I'm suddenly hearing things I never heard before, including things mentioned in class. Way back in the beginning, when we learned question words, we were told that there are alternate short and long forms like o que and o que é que, quem or quem é que. I have never heard the long forms, ever, and concluded that they were just another classroom fiction. But today, just before we left Cabo Frio, M said something to me that I didn't catch right away. It sounded like French qu'est-ce que c'est, only much abbreviated, approximately kekse, which must be (o) que (é) que (vo)cê. The other thing I just started hearing is reflexives. Maybe I just didn't pay attention to them before, but I really never noticed any. In print, I've seen signs like aluga-se (for rent) and vende-se (for sale) which look like they have reflexive pronouns but also seem similar to passives. Suddenly I'm hearing those forms. [...]

Journal entry, week 22
I've just said to N o que é que vocé quer, but quickly [kekseker]. Previously I would have just said que. N didn't blink, so I guess I got it right, except now I wonder if it should have been quiser. I can't believe that what I notice isn't crucial for what I do.
(Schmidt and Frota, 1986)

Click here for Commentary.