Interface position
The interface position is a concept in
There are three basic positions in the interface position: the no-interface position, the strong-interface position, and various weak-interface positions.
Positions
Non-interface position
The non-interface position states that there is an absolute separation of implicit and explicit language knowledge inside speakers' minds. In this view, it would be possible to have implicit and explicit knowledge about the same language features without them being connected in any way.[1] This view is most commonly associated with Stephen Krashen and his acquisition/learning hypothesis, one of the five hypotheses often known together as the input hypothesis. Krashen's views have been criticised by other second language acquisition researchers for their lack of falsifiability, amongst other things.[3]
Strong-interface position
The strong-interface position views language learning much the same as any other kind of learning. In this view, all kinds of learning follow the same sequence, from declarative knowledge (explicit knowledge about the thing to be learned), to procedural knowledge (knowledge of how the thing is done), and finally to automatization of this procedural knowledge. Learners move from one stage of knowledge to the next by practice. This position is most often associated with Robert DeKeyser.[4]
Weak-interface positions
There is no one single weak-interface position; rather, "weak-interface" is a way of categorizing positions that fall somewhere in the continuum between no-interface and strong-interface. Rod Ellis's weak interface model says that developmental features of language such as third person -s can be converted into implicit knowledge only if the learner is at the correct developmental stage for that feature. Variational features such as the copula be, however, can be converted into implicit knowledge at any time.[5] Nick Ellis also takes a weak-interface position, in which both implicit and explicit knowledge can work together cooperatively, with implicit knowledge being the most important for learning.[6] In his view this cooperation is true for any learning task, language-based or not.[7] Nick Ellis's position differs from Rod Ellis's in that he argues that explicit knowledge cannot become implicit knowledge, although both theories posit an indirect role for explicit knowledge in developing an implicit knowledge system.[6]
Studies
These arguments remain mostly theoretical in nature; however, there has been one study with the direct aim of clarifying the interface hypothesis, performed by DeKeyser in 1995.
See also
- Double bind, an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication
Notes
- ^ a b c d Richards & Schmidt 2009, "Interface".
- ^ Richards & Schmidt 2009, "Implicit knowledge".
- ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 420–421.
- ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 247.
- ^ Ellis 2008, p. 423.
- ^ a b Ellis 2008, p. 424.
- ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 246–247
- ^ DeKeyser 1995.
- ^ Ellis 2008, p. 426.
References
- DeKeyser, Robert M. (1995). "Learning Second Language Grammar Rules: An Experiment with a Miniature Linguistic System". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 17 (3): 379–410. S2CID 145480076.
- Ellis, Rod (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-442257-4.
- Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-8058-5497-8.
- ISBN 978-1-4082-0460-3.