Implicit AND explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity
Abstract
Learning symbols and their arrangement in language involves learning associations across and within modalities. Research on implicit learning and chunking within modalities (e.g. N. C. Ellis, 2002) has identified how language users are sensitive to the frequency of language forms and their sequential probabilities at all levels of granularity from phoneme to phrase. This knowledge allows efficient language processing and underpins acquisition by syntactic bootstrapping. Research on explicit learning (e.g. N. C. Ellis, 2005) has shown how conscious processing promotes the acquisition of novel explicit cross-modal form-meaning associations. These breathe meaning into the processing of language form and they underpin acquisition by semantic bootstrapping. This is particularly important in establishing novel processing routines in L2 acquisition. These representations are also then available as units of implicit learning in subsequent processing. Language systems emerge, both diachronically and ontogenetically, from the statistical abstraction of patterns latent within and across form and function in language usage. The complex adaptive system (N. C. Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009b) of interactions within AND across form and function is far richer than that emergent from implicit or explicit learning alone.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Consciousness affords novelty.
“consciousness affords novelty (N.C. Ellis, 2015).”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as N.C. Ellis, 2015
Automaticity relies upon memorized structures and habits.
“Automaticity relies upon memorized structures and habits”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as N.C. Ellis, 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 136 · Cited by 201
- Authors
- Ellis, N. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ellis, Nick C.
- ORCID
- Ellis, Nick C.
- Venue
- Studies in Bilingualism
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2015-09-04
- Pages
- 3-24
- ISSN
- 0928-1533 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2547136409
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 136
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 13.60
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in bilingualism (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- implicit learning, explicit learning, second language acquisition, syntactic bootstrapping, semantic bootstrapping, cross-modal associations, form-meaning association, statistical learning, chunking, complex adaptive systems, language processing
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