Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, No. 1, 1981

4

; Cancino, H.; E. Rosansky; and 1. Schumam. 1974 Testing hypotheses a b u t second language acquisition: the copula and negative in three subjects. Working Papers on Bilin- gualism 3.80-96.

2 Dinnsen, D., and F. Eckman. 1978. Some substantive universals in atomic phonology. -

Lingua 45-1-14. Q

Eckrnan, F. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27.315-330.

Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Moulton, W. 1962. The sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanwge IRAL 10.209-231.

Shibatani, M. 1973. The role of surface phonetic constraints in generative phonology. Language 49.87-106.

Tarone, E.; U. Frauenfelder; and L Selinker. 1976. Systematicityivariabili~ and stability1 ; /nstability in interlangvage systems. Papers in second language aquisition, ad. by H. D.

i Brown, 93-134. Ann Arbor: Research Club in Language Learning.

! )

! )

The Role of Linguistic Knowledge in second Language Use

Ellen Bialystok The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

The purpose of the present paper is to examine the hypothesis that there are fundamental differences between using Ianguage in different situations or for different purposes, and that these differences may be accounted for in terms of the requirement of the task to be solved on the basis of knowledge represented in a particular way. .

First, a means of distinguishing language tasks is described in terms of a continuum kom structurel to instrumental demands. The role of appropriate knowledge for the solution to tasks along this continuum is examined by proposing two factors for the description of that knowledge--analysed, or the extent to which it is explicit, and automatic, or the extent to which it is fluent. The distinction between explicit and implicit linguistic knowledge is elaborated and related to other theoretical and empirical descriptions in the literature which attribute at least two distinct asgects of proficiency to language learners. Finally, thelanguage tasks and forms of knowledge are related by proposing the specific linguistic demands made by tasks at various points along the continuum. It is argued that success on a given task requires not only that the relevant information is known by the learner, but also that it is represented appropriately.

Finally, some implications lor Ianguage pedagogy and the development of language profi- ciency are discussed.

The present analysis attempts to deal with the problem of describing language proficiency by offering a componential approach to that description. Language proficiency covers the domain of abilities that are reflected in mastery over any aspect of language for any linguistic purpose. In this sense, communicative compe- tence may be considered as one aspect of language proficiency; specifically, it refers to that aspect of a learner's proficiency which permits that learner to interact fluently and effectively through the language for instrumental purposes. In some approaches, a componential description may be applied even at this level. Canale and Swain 11980) for example, propose that communicative competence min i i l l y comprises grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence. The present problem, however, is to examine the concept of profi- ciency more globally so that communicative competence and other types of com- petence, such as Iinguistic competence, may be understood and related to each other. This will be attempted by examining various language tasks and proposing for each the type of mastery of thelanguage needed by thelearnerto succeed on that task. That mastery will be described by two parameters describing the learner's knowledge of the language. The approach is componential in that the attempt is to

learners appear to have mastered certain aspects of the language in some situations yet consistently make errors with those same aspects in others.

The demonstration of underlying differences in proficiency which are specific to certain language uses has crucial practical consequences. If language proficiency is adequately described by the componential approach, then language tasks must be carefully analysed for the skills being tested. Performance on certain types of tasks, for example grammatical exercises, must be interpreted within the framework described by the relationship between grammatical ability and general language proficiency; the limitations of that performance with respect to predicting other kinds of performance must be recognized. Second, evidence for the independence of particular language abilities that depend on specific forms of information that relate to different uses of language has important pedagogical implications. Within this model, it cannot be assumed that an instructional focus on certain formal aspects of the code will be effective in developing learners' mastery of the language for communication.

- In order to adequately describe the relationship between aspects of proficiency and 1 learner knowledge, it is necessary to establish criteria for differentiating both . 1 language tasks and forms of linguistic information. One model which addresses the ' former concern is that proposed by Allen (1980). He identifies three levels of ; language-structural, rhetorical, and instrumental, and on that basis constructs a pedagogical framework for second language teaching. The assumption is that the . different levels in the trichotomy engage different aspects of a learner's language ability, and that mastery of one doesnot assure or predict mastery of the other. This approach will be incorporated with a psycholinguistic model which distinguishes the learner's control over information about the language in terms of explicit and implicit linguistic linowledge. Each of these models will be reviewed separately and then related to explore their potential in helping to understand the nature of language proficiency.

On the Nature of Language Tasks A convenient means for dichotomizing language tasks is to consider their relative emphasis on code-related features of the language or communicative use of the language. This distinction has been expressed by the terms 'formal' and 'functional' language respectively, but there has been little consensus concerning the precise meaning of these terms in the study of language teaching and learning. Stern (1978) has attempted to clarify the issue by identifying different uses for these terms by two major disciplines which he describes on two dimensions, the psycholinguistic-pedagogic, or the P-scale, and the linguistic-sociolinguistic, or L-scale. The P-Scale refers to differences in strategies of learning and teaching while the L-Scale refers to differences in linguistic analysis.

In an attempt to avoid some of the difficulties associated with the use of a binary, 'iormal-fu,nctionalJ classification, Allen (1980) has included a third component

r kL ~ h c Role of Linguistic Knowledge m Second Language Use 1 Bialystok 33 1

.- -. .- . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - . - - - . - - - pp

32 Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, No. 1, 198

uncover the components of language proficiency which may account for dis- '

crepancies in performance in different situations. Presumably, the two parameters examined will have that effect. In practical terms, the aim is to discover why

which is intermediary to these. Thus, according to his interpretation, when a fluent speaker uses language he draws upon threeaspects of language: astructural aspect, which is concerned with the formal features of language, includingpronunciation, grammatical rules and vocabulary; arhetorical aspect, which is concerned with the development of generalised rules of spoken and written discourse; and an instru- mental aspect, which involves the ability of the speaker to interpret or express the conceptual meaning which is appropriate to a given context.

. .-

The application of this tricomponential model to the description of language tasks concerns the extent to which the purpose of the task is to focus the learner's attention on the formal, the rhetorical, or the instrumental aspects of language. Thus, when referring to tasks, the particular descriptive term used should be interpreted as representing a bias or focus rather than an exclusive feature or characterization. A grammar task, for example, relies primarily on knowledge of the formal features of language, while a communication task can incorporate formal, rhetorical and instrumental aspects in various degrees. lt is this blendof the various aspects of language which determines the relatively formal or com- municative nature of a task and which reflects the way in which language is used in real-life social interaction.

The problem of accounting for variations in learner performance is not completely resolved, however, by identifying the information required for each task. It is still the case that the same information, for example, correct formation of Wh- questions, appears to be sometimes known and sometimes not. Therefore, we additionally need to consider the learner's control over the relevant information.

Representing Information about Language While a quantitative approach to describing knowledge need only specify how much is known, the qualitative approach used in the present scheme attempts to specifyhow it is known. This qualitative description is based on two factors: first, the type of mental representation assigned to the information which differentiates, in effect, degree of control; and second, the procedure for using that information which differentiates the learner's relative access to it. If we consider these factors binary and identify only two major values on each, then a four-cell model emerges which describes the learner's knowledge of language. For a particular learner, information may exist in any or all of the four cells, and specific patterns of movement through these cells reflect developing competence with the language.

In both epistemology and cognitive psychology, information or knowledge has often been dichotomized according to its structure and use, yielding such catego- ries as personal knowledge/objective knowledge (Polanyi, 19581, belief/knowledge (Scheffler, 19651, know howlknow that (Ryle, 19491, figurative knowledge/ opera- tive knowledge (Piaget, 1954). In these pairs, the first term refers to knowledge which is largely intuitive, vaguely defined, and generally specific to a context; the second to knowledge which is analytic, structurally identifiable, and independent of specific contextual constraints, that is, abstract.

-. .- .- - - . -- .. - . - . . . .

34 Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, No. 1, 1981

In second language learning, the same distinction can be made. The general form in which information is represented allows us to know things intuitively without being aware of the formal properties of that knowledge. For example, we know a great deal about language that defies mental examination, but the knowledge is demonstrated by our ability to produce correct, coherent utterances. Tbis infor- mation we have called implicit linguistic knowledge.

Just as it is possible to understand any information at a deeper or more analytic level, so it is possibIe to make apparent the structures underlying linguistic infor- mation. When these structures are analysed, then the information is no longer contextually bound to a particular situation; it can be understood as systematic, organized information in its own right. It is this analysed information that we call explicit linguistic knowledge.

Explicit linguistic knowledge has the same general properties as' other forms of objective information described above. Just as 'operative' knowledge in Piaget's scheme is the only form of representation which permits certainoperations such as the transformations required for the cognitive task of conservation, so explicit knowledge is essential to certain abstract operational uses of language such as literacy. Similarly, implicit linguistic knowledge, like Piaget's 'figurative' knowl- edge, provides a reflection of the world but no means of manipulating or adaptingit. In this sense, implicit knowledge is 'descriptive' in that the structure of the knowledge is not apparent apart from its application; explicit knowledge is 'ex- planatory' in that its logical basis is understood independently of its application.

Three behavioral criteria for the presence of explicit knowledge are specified. First, if the structures are understood in the general abstract form, then the information must be transferable to other contexts. The consistent application of a particular linguistic feature in a variety of contexts or the identification of structural similar- ity in otherwise disparate linguistic contexts would suggest the use of explicit knowledge. Second, if responses are explicitly based, then the structures determin- ing the response are apparent and justifications can be provided. This, in fact, is one of the criteria identified by Scheffler for the presence of 'knowledge' as opposed to 'belief'. Hence formal justification which indicates the learner's awareness of the logical necessity for particular structures in a given linguistic context indicates the use of explicit knowledge. Finally, responses derived from explicit knowledge are accompanied by the respondent's certainty of their correctness; intuitions are less reliable as a subjective basis for correct response. Implicitly-based responses may well be correct, but the respondent is simply less positive that they are. Note that for none of the criteria is it ever required to articulate or verbally state a particular linguistic rule; knowledge of tbe linguistic structures is demonstrated behaviour- ally and by informal descriptions.

It is important to clarify the relationship between 'explicit' knowledge and what might be called 'articulated' knowledge. While explicit knowledge may permit the learner to formulate verbal rules, explicit knowledge is not necessarily represented to the learner as a set of rules. That is, there is no reason to believe that our understanding of linguistic structure is isomorphic to the linguist's description of

The Role of Lingu~stic Knowledge in Second Language Use I Bialystok 35

that structure. For example, we can know that some verbs accept objects and some do not without the linguistic notion of transitive and intransitive verbs. In some more complex cases, linguists do not even agree about what those ruIes are, and some rules, such as mnemonics, while pedagogically useful, are linguistically irrelevant. Thus while rules are attempts to characterize the regular features of language, the knowledge of structures does not require the formalization of these rules.

f i e confusion between explicit and articulated knowledge rests on the erroneous equation between 'propositional' and 'linguistic' forms of mental representation. The two are not the same. Pylyshyn (19731, for example, proposes an elaborate propositional representation system which permits varying degrees of explicit control. A 'tacit knowledge' system, also propositionally based, is assigned certain problem-solving functions (Pylyshyn, in press). Language may also be described propositionally (see for example, Clark b Clark, 19771, but that doesnot imply that propositional kno.wledge is linguisuc. Thus, Seliger (1979) reports a study which demonstrates that learners do not operate from verbal statements in performing particular linguistic tasks and on that basis questions the viability of models which attribute psychological reality to those rules [Bialystok, 1978, Krashen, 1977). We donot assume, however, that these explicit representations take the form of verbal rule statements; only that like language, they are propositional.

Access to Information The second factor refers to the accessibility of the linguistic information, whether implicit or explicit. The existence of certain knowledge for a learner is not suffi- cient to distinguish skilled or fluent performance from less skilled. Through prac- tice and experience the learner must gain easy access to that information. We can describe this difference in access as 'automatic' or 'not automatic'.

Chomsky (1980) has also argued for a distinction between knowledge and the ability to effectively use that knowledge by distinguishing 'grammatical comDe-

r - tence' from 'pragmatic competence'. In 'grammatical competence' he includes all linguistic aspects of form and meaning. 'Pragmatic competence' he defines as:

the ability to use such knowledge along with the conceptual system to achievecertain ends or purposes. It might be that pragmatic competence is characterized by a certain system of constitutive rules represented in the mind, as has been suggested in a qumber of studies. Ip.591

WhiIe Chomsky's pragmatic competence is more substantive than our access factor in that it includes rules of use, it nonetheless appears to be functionally equivalent. Moreover, his two aspects of language competence are supported by a conceptual system in a manner similar to that proposed in our scheme outlined in Figure 1 described in a later section. In that figure the access factor would be responsible for activating or making available the appropriate linguistic and con- ceptual knowledge required to solve each task.

Using the Information The four cells described by these two factors are shown in Table 1. By using the

36 Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, No.

terms 'analysed' and 'automatic', we can represent these cells by a system and '-Is.

Table 1: Possible representational forms for linguistic infonuation

Automatic

Analysed

Theimportance of the distinctions reflected in the four cells is that each of the four combinations of these two factors permits the learner to perform different types of ,

linguistic tasks. Stated the other way, any linguistic task presupposes or requires that the information relevant to that task is represented in one of these four ways. Thus, locating the learner's knowledge of the language (or aspects of the language) in the matrix permits one to predict the kinds of language tasks that learner is able to perform.

+ +--- -

The +'sand -Is are analogous to marked and unmarked concepts respectively. The general form for representing information is the unmarked I-), but that informa- tion may become marked (+) on either or both of the dimensions analysed, and automatic. Hence movement of information is always from a '-' to a '+' cell as indicated by the arrows on the table. The most sophisticated form of language competence is represented by the cell with two '+Is.

Highly skilled literate

L2 leamers "

The general cell '-An-Aut' conceivably contains all the information one has about the language. As language learning proceeds and the learner develops certain specialized skills, such as literacy, this information can be marked accordingly, giving it the potential to fulfill additional functions, although its more primitive characterization as general inforrnation is never lost. Thus it may be that in the very earliest stages of second languageacquisition in cases where there isno formal instruction, it is possible that this representation accounts for everything the learner knows about the Ianguage: i.e., at this stage all knowledge is implicit and access to it is difficult.

Fluent speakers

L2 learners at early stages

Children learning L 1

The Role of Linguistic Knowledge in Second Language Use I Blalystok 37 2

Where language is learned in a formal situation, some of the structure of the language is apparent at the time of input since rules areused to organize and teach the language. These rules permit the learner to represent aspects of the language explicitly, although at the early stages the access to that information is still difficult. Alternatively, the learner may become aware of a structure governing some information known implicitly, and then see the language in those abstract terms. In both these cases, the information about the language would be character- izedin the matrix asl+An, - A d . Wemay say that some of the information in the general '-An, -Autl cell has been marked for the analysed feature, that is, it has been made explicit.

Marking also occurs by improving access to the information until i t is fluent and automatic. For unanalyzed, or implicit inforrnation, the result is fluent speech or comprehension; ordinary conversation needs no linguistic awareness or explicit information about language to proceed effectively. Fluent speakers of either a first or second language can be said to have automatic access to the implicit knowledge, described in the matrix as '-An, +Autl.

When automatic access to explicit linguistic knowledge is possible, the result is highly skilled linguistic performance. This special fluency with the structure of - - .-

language apart from its conversationaluse is required for language tasks containing a high literacy or academic component. It may be that literacy itself requires that a large portion of our linguistic knowledge is represented in this way.

Evidence from three types of studies in second language leaming can be interpreted within this scheme. These studies demonstrate both that language skills may be classified in terms of independent abilities and that the proposed distinctionsin the matrix are consistent with some of those abilities identified empirically. The three types of studies are tests of grammaticality judgements, linguistic awareness, and CALPISICS.

Grammaticality judgements It is a common experience that decisions concerning the grammatical acceptability of a sentence in a given language can be accurately made without any recourse to the formal basis of that decision. Sentences 'sound right' for reasons that may be completely obscure, and in these cases justifications for the decisions can rarely be provided. The literature on grammaticality judgement tasks, hawever, has often reported more rigorous task demands, requiring for example evidence and conec- tion of error, and has in these cases reported rather different findings. In our scheme, these two aspects of the task are based on the two knowledge sources: overall judgements of grammaticality can often be made implicitly, but justifica- tion and correction require explicit knowledge.

i In an important series of studies, Reber and his colleagues (Reber, 1976; Reber & i Lewis, 3977; Reber &Allen, 1978) have demonstrated not only the viability of an

implicit system for making grammaticality judgements but also the necessity of

I using an implicit rather than an explicit system for particular versions of these problems. Their tasks required difficult judgements about the acceptability of Ietter strings derived from an artificial grammar. Subjects were never presented

- -. - -- - - - - - . .- . . . .

38 Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, No. I, 1981

with the rule.system and, in some cases, were not,even told that one existed, yet their judgements were extraordinarily accurate (68% to 80% depending on the task). oreo over, subjects could neither provide evidence for their decisions nor state any rules which governed the system, and drastically underestimated the accuracy of their performance. In our terms, they couId provide no justifications 1 and they were uncertain of the response. These indications support Reber's in- terpretation that the judgements were based on an implicit knowledge system.

In a more traditional gramrnaticality judgement test in which subjects were also required to correct deviant sentences, test scores reflected the learner's ability to perform in a structural language task both as a function of grade level and target structure [Lightbown h Barkman, 1978). This task, we expect, was solved explic- itly.

Finally, in a study aimed at examining the interaction between the explicit and implicit systems in a grammaticality judgement task, the more specific role for each type of knowledge was identified [Bialystok, 1979). Subjects were required to d i s t i n ~ i s h grammatical from ungrammatical sentences in one of three ways: by simple classification between correct and incorrect sentences; by locating the error in an incorrect sentence as being in the verb, the adjective, or the pronoun; or by specifying which of nine grammatical rules (three for each of the three parts of speech in the previous condition) had been violated by the error. The task was performed twice-once when a response was required immediately and once when the subject was given time to consider and reflect upon the answer. The results showed that initial judgements of overallgrammaticality weremade on the basis of implicit knowledge and that detailed information about the type of error was possible only when time conditions permitted the learner to consult explicit knowIedge. This functional differentiation supports the interpretation of two knowledge systems which are invoked for different aspects of the grammaticality judgement task.

Linguistic Awareness Studies in linguistic awareness, generally defined as the ability to attend to the forms of language independently of meaning, conflict concerning the criteria which indicate the presence of this ability and hence on the tasks required to assess it. The conflict, however, may be resolved in terms of the differential reliance on either explicit or implicit linguistic knowledge. Mattingly (1972, 1979) defines linguistic awareness only in terms of access to tacit grammatical knowledge while C. Chomsky (1979) adds a condition of consciousness. This consciousness refers to the process of accessing the relevant information to demonstrate control over that aspect of knowledge. Thus, for Mattingly, linguistic awareness may be demon- strated by the use of implicit knowledge while for Chomsky, the ability is tied to the use of explicit knowledge.

Other proposals regarding the criteria for linguistic awareness may be placed in the same scheme. Cazden (1974) claims that accessibility and consciousness are two levels of awareness, accessibility being the simpler. Gleitman and Gleitman (1979), like Chomsky, require consciousness as an indicator of linguistic awareness and

-

The Role of Llnguistlc Knowledge In Second Language Use I B~alystok 39

: make the further claim that it is this evidence of conscious knowledge that accounts for the relevant individual differences in language behavior: "That is, we claim the differences in tacit knowledge are smaIl in comparison to differences in the ability to make such knowledge explicit" (p.123). Finally, Ryan (1975) places even more rigorous demands on consciousness as a criterion for linguistic aware- ness: "metalinguistic tasks require conscious knowledge and manipulation of the rules which are employed unconsciously in spontaneous conversation" (p.1).

The importance of all these accounts of linguistic awareness is that they identify a specialized language skill that is marked by some degree of accessibility to and some amount of consciousness about the learner's general [i.e. impIicit) knowledge of language. It is important to emphasize that the information is not different from that used for ordinary conversation but that the learner's access or consciousness (or both) with respect to that information is different, that is, specialized. Moreover, this specialized knowledge has been designated responsible for develop- ing skills such as as literacy and certain types of grammatical analysis 1e.g. Ryan, 1977; Mattingly, 1979; devilliers hdevilliers, 1972). One way to account for these specialized language abilities is to assume that the information must be repre- sented differently from that used for ordinary conversation, and that specialized representation we call explicit knowledge.

Language Proficiency and the CALPBICS Problem Another conceptualization w h c h attempts to isolate components of language proficiency is that offered by C u m i n s (1979) in which he distinguishes between cognitivelacademic language proficiency (CALP) and basic interpersonal com- municative $kills (BICS). The distinction is defined not theoretically but empiri- cally: performance by learners in a variety of tasks is found to produce two sets of correlated results which he attributes to these two distinctive abilities.

The first of these, CALP, is offered to replace Oller's (1 97 8) global language dirnen- sion and refers to that aspect of proficiency which is 'strongly related to overall cognitive and academic skills'. Evidence of this relationship is obtained primarily through correlational analysis between verbal I.Q. scores, academic achievement, and various tests of linguistic mastery which relate to reading, grammar, vocabu- lary, reading comprehension, dictation, and free writing. The skills designated as BlCS are less well defined but in general relate to those aspects of language more directly concerned with the use of language and interpersonal communication. The language tests and evaluations that have been identified for BICS include phonol- ogy, oral fluency, listening comprehension, and free oral production. The distinc- tionhas been used to help explain such crucial issues in second language learning as the role of age as a determining factor in language mastery.

The CALPlBlCS distinction is important to our model for at least two reasons. First, it offe~s additional independent evidence that a single ability is inadequate t o account for the development of language proficiency and hence a psycholinguistic model which proposes only a single process or representational system is similarly inadequate to explain language mastery. Second, the critical feature which differ- entiates CALP and BICS is similar to that which differentiates information in our

40 Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, No. 1, 198

representational model. The CALP tasks are those which presuppose some analysis of the linguistic information, at least to the extent that the acquisition of skills like literacy presupposes such analysis. The BICS tasks, on the other hand, are more intuitively based with respect to the linguistic structure.

The role of explicit and implicit knowledge in language proficiency The three areas of language proficiency which have been reviewed in this section all suggest the need to identify at least two distinct components of linguistic proficiency. Moreover, the distinction in a11 cases points to diff erences in the kinds of information about the language required by each of the aspects of proficiency. While the content of the information varied considerably, the feature which re- mained constant in all the distinctions reviewed was the extent to which the information was understood and used by the learner as an abstract linguistic structure independently of the context in which it occurred. This is the nature of

, the information which we have called explicit linguistic knowledge. Further, for i either explicit or implicit knowledge learners' competence may be judged by the

extent to which accessing the information is either fluent and automatic or diffi- [cult and deliberate.

Given, then, differences in both the nature of the information and the access to that information, it seems reasonable to posit distinct representational systems for the two types of information. The structure of the mental representation is assumed to be different in each case, and the access to that mental structure is responsible for the differences that can be observed between learners with respect to fluency.

Relationship Between Knowledge Sources and Language Tasks If the distinction between these proposed knowledge sources is to be useful, then we must identify the specific range of language problems for which each is required. The description of language tasks will be organized along a dimension of structural to instrumental demands and the mapping between these tasks and the two knowledge sources will be described.

There are two hypotheses concerning the relationship between type of knowIedge required and the task demands. First, recall that the description of language tasks as structural, rhetorical, or instrumental refers to the primary focus of the taskon the grammatical, grammatical plus discursive, or grammatical, discursive, plus con- ceptual aspects of language respectively. The increasing involvement of conceptual information as one moves towards instrumental tasks decreases, we suggest, the amount of linguistic information, both grammatical and discursive, required to solve that task. That is, there is a quantitative decrease in the amount of purely linguistic information necessary for tasks that are increasingly instrumental in focus. Generally, there is an increase in options as tasks become more instrumen- tal, and the decrease in linguistic information would likely be compensated by a greater reliance on conceptual information. This option, too, could account for the greater variability observed in performance on tasks that are more instrumental, partly through the possibility of usingprocedures like communication strategies to supplant gaps in linguistic knowledge.

i The Role of Linguistic Knowledge in Second Language Use I Bialystok 1' I

An adequate account of the conceptual system that becomes invoked in these instrumental tasks is a problem beyond the scope of the present analysis. The conceptual features which signal meaning and the structure of our conceptual categories for retrieving meaning are difficult problems and are addressed by cog- nitive theories of meaning (e.g. Miller and Johnson-Laird, 1976; Neisser, 1976). hcluded also in the conceptual information is the speaker's knowledge of other languages, although no specific proposals are advanced for the possible transfer of this information to the target language. At this point we assume only that it i s referenced in much the same way as any other supporting information that the learner has.

The second hypothesis concerns the qualitative nature of that linguistic infonna- tion, irrespective of its quantitative involvement. Specifically, we propose that while explicit representations of linguistic knowledge are necessary to solve struc- tural language tasks, implicit representations about the code are adequate for the solution to instrumental tasks.

The proposed relationship between the linguistic information involved in struc- tural and instrumental language tasks and explicit and implicit knowledge is represented by the graph in Figure 1. Thex-axis indicates the relative emphasis o n the structural or instrumental aspects of language for a given task and the Y-axis theamount of linguisticinformation required to solve the task. The necessary type of representation for this information is given by the solid or broken lines in the figure. The sum of the two forms of linguistic information is greater for structural tasks than for instrumental tasks. The decreasing role of linguistic information i n instrumental tasks is compensated by an increasing involvement of conceptual information.

Quantified Involvement

\ of Linguistic Knowledge

Structural Rhetorical instrumcnta1 Task Dimension

- Explicit knowledge - - - Implicit Knowledge +o+ Conceptual Knowledge

Figure 1. Hypothesized use of explicit and implicit knowledge in the linguistic aspects of structural and instrumental language tasks

42 Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, NO. 1, 198

As the tasks move from the structural to the instrumental, the type of linguistic knowledge involved gradually shifts from predominantly explicit to predomi- nantly implicit. In the extreme case of structural language tasks which operate in the domain of metalinguistic knowledge, i t is possible that implicit knowledge is irrelevant. At the instrumental endpoint, however, the option to incorporate some amount of expIicit knowledge remains a viable possibility.

Most language tasks fall between these endpoints and may be described by a formula which involves various proportions of explicit and implicit linguistic information. In most structural language tasks, for example, such as grammatical- ity judgements in a context or cloze test completions, formal decisions about appropriate structures can be guided by intuitive information since the context and meaning permit the learner to make less abstract assessments of linguistic struc- ture. Similarly, in oral conversation where implicit information is primary, explicit information may be consulted to assure the accuracy of specific structures, al- I though an overreliance on such information would interfere with the conversa- tional interaction.

Thus, with the exception of tasks located at the extreme structural end of the scale, the solution of language tasks is described by a particular blend of information drawnfrom explicit and implicit knowledge. For example, where the useof explicit knowledge would be a deterrent, such as in the interpretation of informal spoken language, the task is assigned a position to the right of the crossover between the lines indicating the two types of knowledge. Similarly, where the use of explicit knowledge.ispostulated to play a major role (i.e., i n readinga forma1 academic text), implicit knowledge may also be involved. Thus, one aspect of fluency involves the ability of a speaker to combine information from the knowledge sources invarying proportions, and to utilize the most efficient blend for the solution of a particular task.

The proposed scheme functions somewhat as a 'recipe'. Specific outcomes in terms of proficiency on particular tasks, are described in terms of 'ingredients', in this case, forms of knowledge. The test of the hypothesized relationships between forms of knowledge and types of outcomes requires examining the way in which learners solve tasks selected from various points along the task continuum, and analysing those solutions in terms of the factors for analysed and automatic information. The prediction is that learners would succeed only on those tasks for which they had the necessary ingredients, that is, the appropriate forms of knowl- edge. This work is currently in progress and early results show the performance of adult learners of English as a second language to be distributed in the predicted ways.

The analysis of language into component levels, identified by Allen, each of which incorporates different formal features of the language, suggests that there are fundamental differences between using language in different situations or for different purposes. Moreover, the requirement for a specific form of mental repre- sentation for any of those features in order for a learner to use the information appropriately reinforces the argument that language learning and language use

- - - --- -- -

The Role of Linguistic Knowledge In Second Language Use I Bialystok 43

cannot be viewed monolithically. Our concept of language proficiency must ac- t count for all forms of mastery of the language, the formal structural features as well s as the discursive and rhetorical features, and the appropriate representation of that : information. Within this conception of language, language instruction would have

to address all these aspects of language and of the learner's knowledge of the language in order to promote language proficiency at all points along the structural to instrumental continuum of language use. Possibly, the most effective forms of language instruction are those which provide the learner with the ability to operate differentially at various points along this continuum by knowing how to consult the appropriate information.

Within this scheme, the development of language proficiency would be character- ized by an increase in the information marked on the two factors analysed and automatic. It is probably a combination of features of the learning situation that is responsible for the increased marking of linguistic information. We expect that immersion programs, informal exposure, and communicative contact would primarily serve to assist in the marking of the factor automatic. Formal instruction, such as core language programs, and other forms of structural learning and practice, would assist more in the development of the marked form for analysed informa- tion. We do not suggest, however, that thereis a straightforward or simple mapping between formal learning and the development of explicit knowledge, nor between informal exposure and the development of explicit knowledge marked for auto- matic. AIthouth there is a bias for the predominant effects of learning to occur in those directions, we believe that learning is more complex than is suggested by a perfect mapping, and we acknowledge the possibility of both aspects of proficiency being stimulated during any learning experience. We acknowIedge, in otherwords, that it is possible to learn more than one is taught.

Insummary, there are several aspects of this model which should be stressed. First, the basic view is that language proficiency comprises a number of separate skills which must be developed and ultimately combined in order to exhibit full mastery of the language in all situations. Second, the nature of these skilIs may be expressed in terms of control over two marked forms of information about the language. These two forms refer to the explicit analysed control over the linguistic struc- tures, and the fluent automatic access to the information one has about the language, be it explicit or implicit. Third, because of the differential demands of each language task on a particular combination of these factors, it is erroneous to assume that the demonstration of proficiency in one situation indicates profi- ciency in other situations. Rather, the generalizability of proficiency is limited to those test situations which make similar demands on both the amount of linguistic knowledge required and the marking of that knowIedge in terms of the two factors. Knowing a form, we claim, does not assure that the form will be used in free situations. Finally, the application of this scheme to a developmental model of proficiency would invoIve analysing further these components of proficiency t o determine the way in which they might best be developed, either naturally or through pedagogical intervention, and hence yield an understanding of the types of mastery one may expect from learners at different points in development.