Language Learning Approaches: A Review of Research on Explicit and Implicit Learning in Vocabulary Acquisition
Open accessAbstract
The crucial role of lexis in both first and second language acquisition has long been acknowledged by researchers. As Singleton (1999) aptly put it – “the major challenge of learning and using a language, whether as L1 or L2, lies not in the area of broad syntactic principles but in the ‘nitty-gritty’ of the lexicon”. With regards to the general discussions in L2 acquisition research, one glaring issue has always been whether explicit attention to vocabulary is absolutely necessary in vocabulary learning (Hunt and Beglar, 2005, Laufer, 2005a, Hulstijn, 2001, Huckin and Coady, 1999). Various studies have come up with opposing conclusions and the consensus appears to be a compromise between the incidental and the intentional, summarised fittingly by Nation (2005) in his assertion that every course should involve some deliberate attention to vocabulary. The present paper will focus on surveying and comparing the various strands of research dedicated to intentional and incidental vocabulary learning, as well as delve deeper into relevant vocabulary acquisition issues. It is hoped that the observations in this paper will constitute a body of essential empirical evidence together with theoretical insights into the vital areas of vocabulary research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
According to Choo et al., the absence or presence of a learning intention does not play a decisive role because vocabulary acquisition is first and foremost determined by the nature and frequency of processing of new words.
“According to Choo et al. [23], 'the absence or presence of a learning intention does not play a decisive role as vocabulary acquisition is first and foremost determined by the nature and frequency of the processing of new words'.”
From The Effect of Multiplayer Video Games on Incidental and Intentional L2 Vocabulary Learning: The Case of Among Us (2021) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 43
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Ellis, N.C. (1994). Introduction: Implicit and explicit language learning -An overview. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press.
- Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. In S.H. Foster-Cohen, M. Garcia-Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook Volume 5. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- Laufer, B. (1986). Possible changes in attitude towards vocabulary acquisition research. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 24.
- Rieder, A. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning in incidental vocabulary acquisition. Paper presented at the EUROSLA Conference, Edinburgh.
- Authors
- Choo, L. B., Lin, D. T. A., & Pandian, A.
- Affiliations
- Universiti Sains Malaysia (MY)
- Corresponding author
- Choo, LEE Bee
- Venue
- Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 55
- Pages
- 852-860
- ISSN
- 1877-0428 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2071868496
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 8.40
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- vocabulary acquisition, explicit learning, implicit learning, intentional vocabulary learning, incidental vocabulary learning, second language acquisition, lexis, vocabulary teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
