What is implicit learning in the languages classroom?

In this post I'm returning to a subject which is so important for language teachers, and one I have written about before in a historical context here.

Implicit language learning refers to how we acquire a language naturally and unconsciously, without explicitly studying grammar rules, doing exercises or memorising vocabulary. Historically, different language has been used to distinguish between implicit and explicit learning. Researchers and educators have contrasted, for example:

• Informal vs formal learning

• Naturalistic vs classroom learning

• Acquisition vs learning (Krashen)

• Spontaneous vs studial (H.E. Palmer)

• Knowing how vs knowing that (declarative vs procedural knowledge)

These terms broadly reflect a long-standing attempt to distinguish between language development that occurs through meaningful exposure and communication, and language knowledge that develops through structured instruction and conscious study.

I'm going to throw a pebble in the water at this point by saying that even when we do structured exercises such as gap-fills, QA sequences and drills, it's entirely likely that both implicit and explicit learning are taking place. It is also probable that formal exercises are likely to be less interesting and motivational than meaningful tasks or dialogues where lots of implicit learning is taking place.

So... implicit learning happens when learners are exposed to meaningful communication and gradually absorb patterns, structures, and vocabulary through use and repetition. In contrast, explicit learning involves conscious attention to rules, correction, and gramatical explanations.

How does implicit language learning work?

Implicit learning occurs when the brain detects patterns automatically, without any intention to learn. Learners may not be able to explain a grammar rule, yet they can often use it correctly. For example, a student might consistently say “She goes to school” instead of “She go to school” without being able to explain subject–verb agreement. They have just heard the correct usage many times over and it has stuck. (Of course, this often goes wrong. In ths example of the added 's' for third person singular, even very fluent speakers will miss it, partly because it's not needed to get across meaning, and partly because it has never been noticed.)

Implicit learning relies heavily on:

• Repeated exposure to meaningful spoken and written input (the famous 'comprehensible input')

• Interaction with other speakers (communication)

Children acquiring their first language(s) rely almost entirely on implicit learning. They are rarely taught grammar formally, yet they develop complex linguistic systems simply through immersion in communication. In additional language learnin reearchers believe that implicit learning still plays the largest role by far. The debate surrounds the extent to which explicit learning helps and what form this might take (e.g. correction, practice exercises, explanations).

As an aside, neuroscientists tell us that implicit and implicit learning take place in different brain areas. Some argue that explicit learning cannot become implicit since there are no brain mechanisms which allow this to happen. Others argue that that there is an interface between explicit and implicit learning — what we learn explictly can become implicit, i.e. decalarative knowledge can become procedural, knowledge can become skill. I expect that most teachers believe this to be the case.

Arthur Reber's work on implicit learning

Reber coined the term implicit learning in 1967. He defined it thus: "the process whereby people learn without intent and without being able to clearly articulate what they learn". His most famous experiments focused on artificial grammar learning :

1. Learning phase: Participants memorised strings of letters (like "VXVS") without being told they followed hidden rules

2. Test phase: They saw new strings and had to judge which followed the same rules

3. Key finding: Participants performed better than chance at identifying grammatical strings, yet could not describe the rules — a "peculiar combination of highly efficient behavior with almost complete lack of verbalisable knowledge".

Reber's seminal work has been taken as laboratory evidence that implicit learning happens. Is it more effective or effcient than explicit learning? Some researchers believe so.

The role of priming in implict learning

One important cognitive mechanism underlying implicit language learning is priming. Priming occurs when exposure to a particular linguistic form increases the likelihood of using that same form shortly afterwards. It operates automatically and unconsciously, making it a key driver of implicit development. In everyday life, priming occurs in many circumstances. In an intriguing experiment, it was found that if a store plays French music in the wine section, shoppers are statistically much more likely to buy French wine. If they switch the music to German (like an oompah band), shoppers buy German wine (North, Hargreaves & McKendrick, 1997).

The music "primes" your brain with the concept of that country, and that unconscious influence affects your behaviour when you choose the bottle, even if you don't realise the music influenced you.

In every day language use, have you ever found yourself resuing a phrase or vocabulary which your interlocutor has just used? When this happens we have mirrored back what they said without even thinking about it. We sort of subconscioulsy noticed it.

Researchers talk of differet types of implicit priming in language acquisition.

1. Syntactic priming

This happens when hearing or reading a specific grammatical structure makes a learner more likely to use the same structure (similar to our example above).

For example, when working on the relative pronopuns 'qui' and 'que' in French — a common problem area:

• Teacher: “C'est le jean que j'ai acheté.” "C'est le repas que j'ai mangé" "C'est la femme que j'ai vue."

• Student (when prompted): "C'est le téléphone que j'ai acheté".

It was my feeling as a teacher that students really acquired correct usage of 'qui' and 'que' largely because they had heard and seen  multiple examples. They 'picked it up', been primed or acquired it implicitly. (I also gave the simplest explanation of how they work, but I was never really sure this helped much. Hard to know for sure.)

2. Lexical priming

Lexical priming refers to the tendency for words to become associated with particular collocations, grammatical patterns, or contexts through repeated exposure. The concept is closely linked to the work of Michael Hoey, who proposed that every encounter with a word leaves a memory trace. Over time, learners become primed to use certain words in specific ways.

For example:

• Learners become primed to say “make a decision” rather than “do a decision.”

• They associate “commit” with “crime.”

• They learn that “interested” is typically followed by “in.”

These patterns are rarely mastered through rule memorisation alone. Instead, repeated exposure in meaningful contexts gradually builds intuitive knowledge of collocations. Clearly, frequency of exposure is key here. You are more likelt to recall words and phrases if you have heard them many times, or in particularly memorable contexts, for example in a classroom story, game or funny interaction.

Time, exposure, and the limits of the classroom

One major difference between naturalistic acquisition and classroom learning is time. Children acquiring a first language are exposed to thousands of hours of rich, meaningful input. In contrast, classroom learners may receive only a few hours of instruction per week. This leads some to argue that we cannot rely on priming and implicit learning for language learning to be successful. We have to somehow 'cheat' the system by teaching words and grammar very explicitly.

It is obviously true that limited exposure affects implicit learning since implicit learning usually requires frequency. Priming effects accumulate gradually. With restricted input, there are fewer opportunities for syntactic and lexical patterns to be reinforced. But it is also true that explicit instruction, although apparently time-efficient, is limited. We can explain a rule in minutes, but as we so often see in the classroom understanding a rule does not guarantee automatic use. The temptation is to prioritise explicit explanation and practice because implicit knowledge develops slowly through repeated exposure and use. Perhaps a better solution is to limit the diet of language that students hear, see and use, and maximise the amount that we reuse it. My own experience, especially with students of average aptitude, suggest that this is the case. In eceryday classroom terms, with most classes at, say, GCSE, just keep recycling high-frequency, useful, chunked language as much as possible, in the hope that some sticks. (Then teach exam techniques so students cam naximise their marks.)

Can we short-cut acquisition?

Following on from the above, a central question in language teaching is whether acquisition can be accelerated through explicit instruction.

While explicit teaching can draw attention to important features, reduce confusion, speed up initial accuracy in specific exercises and support noticing of language forms, there is little evidence that it can replace repeated, meaningful exposure.  You cannot simply tell the brain to automatise a structure; it must experience it repeatedly in context.

Explicit knowledge may act as a guide or scaffold, helping learners notice patterns and monitor their output (Krashen's 'monitor model'). But the shift from controlled knowledge to fluent, automatic use appears to depend largely on implicit mechanisms such as priming and frequency effects.

In short, I'd go along with the idea that you cannot significantly short-cut acquisition.

Implications for language teachers

Some of these must be obvious by now, but let's put them together. If implicit learning is the more powerful route to lasting acquisition, then classroom practice should aim to maximise the conditions that support it.

This implies several principles:

1. Prioritise meaningful communication. Design tasks where language is used to achieve real outcomes, not simply to display knowledge of rules. Play games, do surveys, make up stories, have dialogues, do question-answer, listen to interesting comprehensible material. Does this exclude grammar practice and drills? Not necessarily — this may depend a good deal on the class in front of you. Higher-achievers may benefit more from formal exercises. Remember that even these contain comprehensible input, even if it is 'sub-optimal'.

2. Increase frequency and recycling. Key structures and lexical patterns should reappear across lessons and contexts, allowing priming effects to accumulate. There are so many ways to do this: senetnce builders, short written and aural texts, dialogues, practice drills, games. 'Less is more' is based on the idea that it is better for a narrowr range of language to stuck, than for no language to stick at all. Students may feel more confident when they can understand and use a limited range of language.

3. Don’t overload explanation. Short, clear explanations can be helpful, but they should serve exposure, not replace it. Research suggests there is value in concise explanations and a degree of practise of patterns, but don't overdo this. There is no need to expect students to explicitly discover patterns in language — only the higher aptitude students seem able to do this effectively. It's fine to explain, but keep is simple.

4. Flood the input. If a target construction is the focus, ensure students hear and read multiple examples within the same lesson and across lessons. They need to hear, read, say and write these constructions. Plan lessons and lesson sequences accordingly. Forcing students to retrieve language from memory reinforces memory (the famous 'retrieval practice' effect).

5. Encourage extensive exposure beyond class time. Reading, listening, and interaction outside the classroom may be essential to compensate for limited instructional hours. This is a tough one, since many students may be reluctant to spend time on this sort of thing. Even getting them to do a limited amount of homework is often a challenge. For some students, if their home environment is challenging, we cannot expect much outside the classroom. Digital tech and AI will be increasingly important in this regard. Conversational AI has enormous potential.

6. Accept gradual development. Acquisition takes time. Fluency emerges from repeated activation of memory traces, not from single explanations. Don't expect linear progress, expect lots of error — but if the input and communication are there, nature will take its course. But provide quick wins for motivation.

Explicit instruction can guide attention and accelerate early understanding, but it is sustained, repeated, communicative use that builds the learner’s internal language system. If implicit learning drives acquisition, then the teacher’s role is not about transmitting rules efficiently, but creating conditions for repeated, meaningful, enjoyable language experience.

I was lucky enough to teach students from age 11 through age 18. When I was teaching those 18 year-olds, with quite sophisticated comprehension and use of French, I asked myself the question: How did this happen? Did the formal learning and grammar execrcises help? My feeling was that almost certainly did, but that far more important was all that implicit 'picking up' of the language over time — implicit learning.

References

North, A., Hargreaves, D. & McKendrick, J. (1997). In-store music affects product choice. Nature 390, 132.

Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(6), 855–863.