Applied Psycholinguistics 34 (2013), 727–753

doi:10.1017/S0142716411000932

The explicit/implicit knowledge

distinction and working memory:
Implications for second-language
reading comprehension
GÜLCAN ERÇETİN and CEM ALPTEKİN
Bogaziçi University

Received: October 1, 2010 Accepted for publication: May 17, 2011

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE

Gülcan Erçetin, Faculty of Education, Department of Foreign Language Education, Bogaziçi
University, 34342 Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Following an extensive overview of the subject, this study explores the relationships between second-
language (L2) explicit/implicit knowledge sources, embedded in the declarative/procedural memory
systems, and L2 working memory (WM) capacity. It further examines the relationships between L2
reading comprehension and L2 WM capacity as well as those between L2 reading comprehension
and L2 explicit/implicit knowledge sources. Participants were late adult learners of English as an
L2, with a relatively advanced level of English proficiency. They completed tests measuring their
WM capacity, explicit knowledge, implicit knowledge, and L2 reading comprehension. Correlation
analysis revealed significant relationships between L2 WM capacity and both explicit and implicit L2
knowledge. Exploratory factor analysis showed that explicit knowledge, WM capacity, and L2 reading
comprehension loaded on a single factor whereas implicit L2 knowledge formed an independent
factor with no relationship to L2 reading. The results suggest that L2 WM is able to manipulate
and store both explicit and implicit L2 input through controlled and automatic processes. They also
suggest that L2 explicit knowledge, connected with the control processes of the declarative system’s
lexical/semantic features, and L2 WM, reflecting attentional resource capacity/allocation associated
with control processes, play an important role in L2 reading comprehension.

Although the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge has long at-
tracted the attention of applied linguists in terms of their contributions to language
learning, the focus in second language research has been predominantly on lin-
guistic development in general, with comparisons made between first-language
(L1) and second-language (L2) acquisition. Examples can be found in a special
issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition (Hulstijn, 2005), which offers
several articles dealing with conceptual and empirical issues concerning the role
of explicit and implicit knowledge in the differential attainment of L1 and L2
proficiency viewed as “grammar.” In this context, what has been neglected is a
© Cambridge University Press 2012 0142-7164/12 $15.00
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 728
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

focus on the distinct functions of explicit and implicit knowledge in the acquisition
of specific language skills, that is, how explicit and implicit knowledge sources
and the corresponding explicit and implicit processes of learning play a role in the
acquisition of a language skill in the L2.
Similarly, the limited research into the role of working memory (WM) in L2
skill acquisition has largely ignored the delineation of the specific interactions
between WM and the multiple memory systems underlying long-term memory
(LTM; Geva & Ryan, 1993; Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Leeser, 2007; Miyake
& Friedman, 1998; Walter, 2004). If, as indicated by N. C. Ellis (2005), explicit
and implicit processes are dynamically involved in “every cognitive task and
in every learning episode” (p. 340) and if WM (at least in its capacity as the
“central executive”) is responsible for scheduling cognitive processing (Baddeley,
1986), then the interactions between WM operations and the declarative and
procedural dimensions of LTM that sustain these operations are crucial for a
thorough understanding of skill acquisition in the L2. Hence, descriptions of ways
in which declarative and procedural dimensions of LTM underpin WM processes
in the L2 remain inadequate, which in turn renders explanations concerning the
role of WM in L2 skill acquisition unsatisfactory or, at best, incomplete.

THE EXPLICIT/IMPLICIT DISTINCTION IN L2 KNOWLEDGE AND

LEARNING
The distinct knowledge sources of implicit and explicit systems map roughly
onto the dissociated components of LTM’s procedural and declarative memory
networks. Despite the consensus on some form of approximate equivalence,
conflicting views exist concerning whether the mapping between the two sys-
tems is isomorphic. Ullman’s declarative/procedural (DP) model (2001a, 2001b,
2005), for instance, considers the pairs of concepts not isomorphic, referring
to procedural memory (PM) as one type of “implicit, non-declarative, memory
system” rather than “all non-declarative or implicit memory systems” (2004,
p. 237). Likewise, declarative memory (DM) refers to an essentially but not thor-
oughly explicit system, sustaining the learning, representation, and use of relevant
data, rather than all the brain structures underlying the learning of new memories
(2004, p. 235). Ullman (2005) states that the knowledge stored in DM is “at least
partly (but not completely) . . . explicit, that is, available to conscious awareness”
(p. 143). In a similar vein, DeKeyser (2009) rejects the view equating the dis-
tinction between implicit and explicit knowledge with that between procedural
and declarative knowledge, conceding nevertheless that the two pairs of concepts
overlap considerably and “can often be equated in certain contexts” (p. 121).
One such fundamental context seems to be the domain of language in which the
distinction between DM and PM is said to largely parallel “the distinction between
the mental lexicon on the one hand and the rule-governed mental grammar that
underlies the composition of complex linguistic forms on the other” (Ullman, 2007,
pp. 278–279), with the caveat (already mentioned) that no one to one equivalence
exists between the two systems. In contrast, Paradis (2009) argues for isomorphic
relationships between explicit knowledge and DM on the one hand and between
implicit knowledge and PM on the other hand, associating consciously controlled
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 729
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

processes of awareness with the former type of networks and the automatic pro-
cesses, impervious to consciousness, with the latter. Nevertheless, he also concedes
that not all linguistic knowledge that is unconscious is procedural in that what is
strictly procedural involves the computational procedures that yield the compre-
hension and production of grammatical (phonological, morphological, syntactic)
structures (p. 12). In the final analysis, the pairs of concepts are generally used inter-
changeably in the L2 domain and, as suggested by Dörnyei (2009, p. 147), the need
for distinctions often stems from researchers’ theoretical focus and background.
However, it is important to emphasize that any account of knowledge representa-
tions subserved by memory systems will be inadequate if it falls short of including
the cognitive processes known to be associated with the modes of operation of
the memory systems themselves.1 From a language acquisitional viewpoint, even
though the DM and PM systems normally subserve explicit and implicit knowl-
edge sources, respectively, it is not impossible for knowledge stored in PM to be at
least partially explicit if it happens to be the outcome of the proceduralization of
declarative knowledge, as might be the case at advanced levels of L2 proficiency
(Ullman, 2004, 2005). Similarly, from the perspective of language use, knowledge
that ordinarily relies on PM may also rely on DM due to its being wholly or
partially memorized as chunks. Finally, knowledge stored in the DM system may
not necessarily be completely explicit in the event part of it is inaccessible to
consciousness. For example, it is perhaps uncommon but not unlikely for explic-
itly learned knowledge to be used implicitly when L2 learners lose awareness of
its rule-based essence over time. By the same token, implicit knowledge may be
expressed explicitly (DeKeyser, 2003) or even partially explicitly (De Jong, 2005)
when the need arises for learners to make it consciously accessible. It follows
that the DM and PM networks should be viewed as being neuroanatomically
dissociated yet functionally cooperating and competing neural structures having
a complementary relationship with the cognitive systems of explicit and implicit
knowledge. Specifically, these networks underlie the acquisition, storage, and
retrieval of explicit and implicit knowledge through a combination of alternating
control and automatic processes guided by circumstances that require modification
in one’s behavior.
In general, evidence suggests that the procedural system stores implicit memo-
ries, whereas the declarative system stores explicit ones (Reber & Squire, 1998;
Squire, 1986, 1987, 1992, 2004), with implicitly acquired knowledge tending to
remain implicit and explicitly acquired knowledge tending to remain explicit.
Implicit knowledge, which is not consciously accessible, is subserved by implicit
procedures of doing things automatically in both motor and cognitive terms. Ac-
cordingly, implicit learning is associated with input processing that takes place
naturally and without awareness. The outcome is referred to as the “know-how”
type of knowledge, comprising automated motor and cognitive skills (commonly
referred to as habits and routines) that are necessary to operate on the environment.
On the other hand, explicit learning is the processing of input in a consciously
controlled way, with a view to generating the “know-that” type of knowledge,
which consists of semantic components about facts and episodic components
about events. Knowing how to play backgammon, for example, although difficult
to express verbally, can be manifested by means of skillful performance, dependent
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 730
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

on the player’s PM. In contrast, based on factual information of an encyclopedic

nature, a formal explanation of the theory of relativity to a group of students is an
illustration of the teacher’s explicit knowledge, resting on DM.
With specific reference to language learning, it is generally acknowledged that
the distinct neurocognitive systems that subserve particular nonlanguage functions
also underlie particular language functions (Hulstjin, 2002; Pinker & Ullman,
2002; Ullman, 2001a). That is, language functions should not be viewed as be-
ing domain specific, at least from a neurocognitive perspective. For instance,
DM, which is specialized for learning, storing, and retrieving arbitrarily related
information about facts and events, is implicated in the acquisition and use of
the mental lexicon as well. Similarly, PM, which is responsible for established
motor and cognitive skills and habits, is implicated in the acquisition, storage, and
retrieval of rule-governed sequential and hierarchical computations of complex
grammatical forms. As Ullman (2001b) indicates, there are associations among
facts, events, and lexicon on the one hand, and among skills, habits, and grammar
on the other hand. Word forms, after all, are like facts or events by virtue of their
being arbitrary and “informationally encapsulated,” unlike grammatical rules that
“are like skills in requiring the coordination of procedures in real time” (Ullman
et al., 1997, p. 267).
Another central issue in L2 learning involves the interface between explicit
and implicit knowledge of language. Interface refers to the notion that one type of
knowledge can be transformed into the other as part of the learning process, despite
the knowledge sources being distinct and even dissociated. In the L2 domain, it
refers specifically to the conversion of explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge,
with corresponding changes from controlled to automatic processes. In contrast,
noninterface rejects the possibility of any such conversions in L2 learning. The
literature on interface reveals a spectrum of views ranging from a strong to weak
to noninterface positions (e.g., DeKeyser, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2009; N. C. Ellis,
2004, 2005; R. Ellis, 2004, 2009; Hulstijn, 2002; Krashen, 1981; Paradis, 2004,
2009; Sharwood Smith, 1981).
As a case in point, Ullman (2004) speaks of a shift that may take place from
the declarative system to the procedural one for late L2 learners because, with
extensive language use, they are likely to become nativelike in their performance
(pp. 256–257).2 Whether this corresponds to a qualitative change, however, is less
certain. First, as indicated earlier, it is not impossible for explicit knowledge repre-
sentations that normally depend on DM to also rely on PM. Memorizing as chunks
morphologically complex forms, for instance, is “not all or nothing” because the
reliance on memorized versus computed representations is based on a combination
of item-, task-, and subject-specific factors (Walenski & Ullman, 2005, p. 337). In
line with this view, both lexicalized and combinatorial representations of the same
form might be found in the same individual (Bowden, Gelfand, Sanz, & Ullman,
2010). Second, based on evidence concerning the neuroanatomical dissociation of
the declarative and procedural systems, Ullman (2005) believes that at advanced
levels of L2 experience and proficiency, the procedural system will be able to
acquire grammatical knowledge, resulting in a neurocognitive pattern similar to
that of the L1. Evidently, proceduralization in this context does not refer to a steady
pattern of declarative rules becoming chunked and stored as procedural routines
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 731
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

as a result of extensive language practice. That is, declarative rules, as Dörnyei

(2009) points out, are not automatized. The process instead lies in the gradual
“replacement of the controlled application of explicit rules by the automatic use
of implicit procedures” (p. 157). This is suggestive of an important change at the
process level in that, as the learner’s proficiency in the L2 increases, a qualitative
shift takes place in the type of processing that is relevant to the linguistic task at
hand. Where it is needed, controlled processes may thereby be replaced by the
corresponding automatic processes, as suggested by Paradis (2009, p. 25), who
considers a change in the type of processing possible while refuting the notion
of explicit knowledge becoming implicit on account of the distinct nature of the
memory networks that sustain the two knowledge systems. Whether this process-
based change that occurs parallel to the L2 learner’s improving proficiency is the
outcome of a new neural network that sustains a separate procedural system of im-
plicit knowledge, with automaticity being merely an incidental feature of language
use (Hulstijn, 2002), is an open-ended question. Another open-ended question is
whether the process-based change is indicative of a conversion from explicit to
proceduralized knowledge, which is thought to be qualitatively different from yet
functionally equivalent to implicit knowledge (DeKeyser, 2003) on account of its
being automatized (DeKeyser, 2009). A final open-ended question, particularly
in the light of Paradis’ (2009) serious critique of the explanatory power of the
model, involves the connectionist and emergentist account of interface according
to which individuals’ explicit knowledge emerges from the explicit memories of
constructions in language use and their abstraction of regularities underlying such
constructions. What is thus initially learned as explicit knowledge contributes to
the conscious creation of utterances whose subsequent extensive use generates
both implicit acquisition and proceduralized knowledge (Ellis, 2005).3
It is obvious that a great deal of further research, particularly of a neurocognitive
essence, is needed to shed more light on the issue of interface. On the whole, it
appears that conversion from one type of knowledge to the other is at best difficult,
given the distinct epistemic nature of the sources of knowledge and the dissociated
status of the memory systems that sustain them. Nonetheless, because the two
systems are complementary to each other, the possibility exists for qualitative
shifts to occur in processing, particularly from controlled to automatic, as a result
of further exposure to and experience with the L2. The jury is still out on whether
processing shifts accompanying increasing L2 proficiency are symptomatic of the
relatively more frequent use of the procedural system (where necessary) or suggest
a conversion of rule-based explicit knowledge of the L2 into implicit procedures.
Irrespective of the outcome, the fact remains that as L2 proficiency improves,
controlled processes of explicit rules are gradually replaced by the automatic use
of implicit procedures. These process-based changes point to a reasonable degree
of interaction between cognitive procedures and knowledge sources, at least at
the level of performance (R. Ellis, 2004, p. 235). In this context, mention should be
made of recent brain-scanning research, that is, work done to measure blood flow
in particular regions of the brain through functional magnetic resonance imaging
or positron emission tomography or to measure electrical-activity patterns through
magnetoencephalography or event-related potentials (ERPs). Such methods that
are currently used to study the biology of language seem to offer interesting
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 732
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

insights on language processing mechanisms that, if synthesized with results from

behavioral studies on the subject, may generate a whole new understanding in
the field of L2 learning and use (Dowens, Vergara, Barber, & Carreiras, 2010;
Morgan-Short, Sanz, Steinhauer, & Ullman, 2010; Newman, Ullman, Pancheva,
Waligura, & Neville, 2007; Pliatsikas, 2010; van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010).

NEUROCOGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES ON THE EXPLICIT/IMPLICIT

DISTINCTION
The explicit/implicit distinction, viewed strictly from a neurocognitive standpoint,
offers interesting insights. Fabbro (1999), for example, advocates the view that
the crucial difference between late L2 learning and L1 acquisition lies in the use
of DM in L2 learning, implicating different cortical structures from those used in
child language acquisition. In the same vein, Ullman’s DP model (2001b, 2004)
indicates that following puberty, while we experience a gradual attenuation of
our PM, we experience an enhancement on the part of our DM. One important
consequence of this shift is that late L2 learning begins to be regulated by the
processing mechanisms of the declarative system, located in the left temporal lobe
structures, which now underpins not only those linguistic functions for which
it is neuroanatomically designed but also those that were once sustained by the
procedural system, which is rooted in the left frontal–basal ganglia circuits. More
precisely, the morphosyntactic and phonological elements of language, which are
processed implicitly by the procedural system in L1 acquisition, are processed
by the declarative system in late L2 learning, which is normally responsible
for controlled lexical/semantic processing, among other cognitive functions. The
DP model thus presents an interesting case of noninterface for late L2 learners
acquiring the target language in formal educational settings, although it seems to
allow for interface at higher levels of L2 experience and proficiency.
Given the divergence of L1 and L2 neural representations in the DP model, it is
not surprising that the nature of processing that subserves encoding and decoding
information in the two languages is different. With DM as a distinct system
playing an important role in late L2 learning, it is natural for conscious awareness
and controlled processing to govern the ways in which explicit learning takes
place (e.g., DeKeyser, 1997; DeKeyser & Juffs, 2005; Ellis, 2005; Hulstijn, 2002;
Paradis, 2004, 2009; Pinker & Ullman, 2002; Ullman, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2004,
2005; Ullman et al., 1997). In particular, lexical/semantic processing becomes
responsible for the acquisition of not only vocabulary knowledge through an
associative network linking arbitrary sounds and meanings, as the case is with L1,
but also the morphosyntactic and phonological properties of the L2—properties
that are ordinarily handled by the procedural system in the L1 (e.g., Bowden et al.,
2010; Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Clahsen & Neubauer, 2010; Morgan-Short et al.,
2010; van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010). Furthermore, language skills, which depend
primarily on the “know-how” type of knowledge associated with PM, are acquired
chiefly through the “know-that” type of knowledge characterizing DM. Overall,
late L2 learning in the formal classroom setting, then, constitutes a process of target
language acquisition based on the exploitation of explicit knowledge accompanied
by the predominant use of controlled processes of cognition that are conscious and
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 733
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

effortful. It is to be expected that through extensive L2 use, morphosyntactic and

phonological associations are gradually strengthened in declarative terms, paving
the way to their being gradually deployed by the PM by the time the learner attains
a high level of proficiency in the L2.
In contrast, if one takes the view that late L2 learning, like L1 acquisition, does
not occur in the context of a dual-memory system, then a somewhat different
interpretation of the learning process is possible. This is the view underlying
Green’s (2003) convergence hypothesis, which maintains that the neural regions
mediating lexis, morphosyntax, and phonology in the L2 are identical to those
used to represent the L1. That is, the processing of the L2 will make use of
the same neural networks and control circuits deployed by native speakers of
the target language. In this single-system context, differences between native
speakers and L2 learners in performing identical linguistic tasks are said to result
from variations in the patterns of activation of the same neural networks. Whereas
native speakers are less dependent on the controlled processes subserved by the
prefrontal cortex, as evidenced by functional neuroimaging studies (Abutalebi
& Green, 2007), L2 learners, especially those at low proficiency levels, show a
high degree of prefrontal activity. Once again, the intense prefrontal activity is
symptomatic of the excessive use of explicit knowledge, as the prefrontal cortex
is engaged when information that is processed is consciously known and actively
controlled.
Irrespective of the divergence or convergence of the LTM systems in L2 ac-
quisition, there are two factors that underpin both views. One is the construct of
proficiency and the other is the notion of control. Leaving aside control, which will
be discussed below in connection with its role in WM operations, and focusing
on proficiency at this point, suffice it to say that both views agree that by the time
nativelike or a very high degree of proficiency is attained in the target language, L2
representations and processes acquire a nativelike essence because “any qualitative
differences between native speakers of a language and L2 speakers of that language
disappear” due to learners’ increasing use of the same cognitive means involving
the same neural networks as native speakers (Green, 2003, pp. 204–205). This
suggests that in nonnativelike levels of L2 proficiency, declarative representations
of morphosyntactic knowledge play an important role in acquisition, as shown
by functional neuroimaging techniques of cortical activation patterns (e.g., De
Diego-Balaguer & Rodriguez-Fornells, 2010; McLaughlin et al., 2010; Newman
et al., 2007; van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010; Wartenburger, Heekeren, Burchert, De
Bleser, & Villringer, 2003). Similarly, the DP model, while emphasizing the major
role played by the age of exposure to the L2, points to the relationship between the
level of proficiency in the L2 and the replacement of DM-based applications of
explicit knowledge by PM-based manipulations as a result of extensive language
use: “an increasing amount of experience (i.e., practice) with a language should
lead to better learning of grammatical rules in PM, which in turn should result in
higher proficiency in the language” (Ullman, 2001a, p. 118). This advanced degree
of L2 knowledge “is expected to become L1-like in its grammatical dependence on
the procedural system” (Ullman, 2005, p. 152) because the system itself gradually
becomes more available “to acquire grammatical knowledge . . . resulting in a
neurocognitive pattern similar to that of the L1” (p. 153).4
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 734
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

In brief, whether one has a divergent or convergent perspective, it is safe to posit

that until late L2 learners in formal instructional settings develop a high degree of
proficiency in the target language, the morphosyntactic and phonological features
of the L2 are likely to be processed explicitly through lexical/semantic means,
the DM system being chiefly in charge of acquisitional processes. This is not
surprising given that, even in the broader framework of educational practices, the
powerful mechanisms of implicit learning remain untapped as the emphasis lies
with conscious processes of explicit learning (Reber, 1993).

WM, THE EXPLICIT/IMPLICIT DISTINCTION, AND L2 LEARNING

As a limited-capacity system utilizing resources associated with attention and
awareness, WM is responsible for the dynamic manipulation and temporary stor-
age of information that is necessary to cope with a variety of complex activities and
tasks (Baddeley, 2003). The WM operations of processing and storage are carried
out simultaneously and are in constant interaction with conscious contents. In
fact, all active elements of WM (e.g., recall, rehearsal, inner speech, report) can
be described as manifesting different degrees of high-level conscious cognition.
It is no surprise, then, that Baars (2003) asserts that WM requires conscious
processes, not vice versa, representing a common view among several researchers
who relate consciousness to attention and awareness (e.g., Baars & Franklin, 2003;
Cowan, 1999; Kintsch, Healy, Hegarety, Pennington, & Salthouse, 1999), with the
understanding that conscious knowledge refers to explicit knowledge (e.g., Dienes
& Perner, 1999) and is associated with the construct of control (Vokey & Higham,
1999). Control is therefore the main descriptor of WM capacity in the sense that
the degree to which WM tasks correlate with complex cognition depends on the
demand for controlled attentional processing (Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999).
Irrespective of late L2 learning representing a single or a dual network of
acquisition, the fact remains that until a high degree of proficiency is attained,
the construct of control in processing is essential for a better understanding of
L2 acquisition. As indicated above, WM operates within the context of conscious
control, being a key component of the prefrontal cortex (the center of cognitive
control at the neural level), in addition to being a component of the parietal cortex,
which is implicated in the selection of competing responses and in the context of
task switching (Abutalebi & Green, 2007, p. 250).
WM’s effects are independent of any specific L1 or L2 (Kane et al., 2004;
Osaka & Osaka, 1992; Osaka, Osaka, & Groner, 1993; Trofimovich, Ammar, &
Gatbonton, 2007) and performance of its tasks in the L1 or L2 show significant
correlations (Alptekin & Erçetin, 2010; Mackey, Adams, Stafford, & Winke, 2002;
Miyake & Friedman, 1998; van den Noort, Bosch, & Hughdal, 2006).5 Research
findings generally suggest that, at least in highly skilled L2 users, the processing
of the L2 shares the same pool of WM resources as the processing of the L1
(Carpenter, Miyake, & Just, 1994, p. 1111).
In the context of the DP model’s dual network of acquisition, the interactions
between the DM and WM systems are more likely to represent the controlled
processes of handling explicit linguistic tasks, some of which could also implicate
the contribution of the procedural system and implicit processing, given the lack
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 735
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

of one to one equivalence between the memory systems, knowledge sources,

and learning procedures, as mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, many researchers in
cognitive psychology advocate the view that the active components of WM are
predominantly conscious and its tasks are openly explicit (for a critical review, see
Hassin, Bargh, Engell, & McCulloch, 2009). In the L2 domain, Paradis (2009),
similarly, claims that WM is responsible solely for the conscious processing of
explicit information among L2 learners, its processes being closed to implicit
linguistic knowledge (p. 50). In contrast, if the neural representation of the L2
is thought to converge with the representation of the L1, WM as a language-
independent “central executive” (Baddeley, 1986) will still schedule cognitive
processing based on selective attention, focusing on relevant aspects of the input
while inhibiting those considered irrelevant. At the neural level, this corresponds to
prefrontal–cortical connections maintaining the relevant information online, while
the basal ganglia’s selection mechanisms prevent the intrusion of distractions in
order to keep all irrelevant information out.6 Given that the language performance
of late L2 learners is predominantly, if not completely, based on their explicit
knowledge, the manipulation of the combinatorial rules of L2 morphosyntax is
likely to be largely dependent on controlled lexical/semantic processing in the case
of systemic divergence, or else it will be subject to the automatic processes of L1
representations of syntactic knowledge and whatever L2 explicit knowledge the
learner has been able to proceduralize if one subscribes to the systemic convergence
view.
It follows that late L2 learning, particularly in its initial stages, is chiefly depen-
dent on cognitive processes of explicit linguistic knowledge, with control playing
a major role in acquisition. Implicit knowledge and the corresponding automatic
processes do not seem to contribute much to the learner’s developing proficiency,
and in the event they do, they may be based largely on L1 procedural knowledge.
Triggered by the L2 input, L1 procedural knowledge is activated involuntarily,
that is, beyond learner intent, and it involves reliance on L1 sentence process-
ing mechanisms that aim at the formation of L2 sentence-processing procedures
(Koda, 2005, p. 111). Notwithstanding its appropriateness for task resolution, such
cross-linguistic transfer leads to sentence processing in the L2 through automatic
and unconscious processes, freeing up, to some extent, the learner’s WM capacity,
which is often overloaded due to the need to tackle linguistic tasks requiring
controlled processing (for an extensive treatment of the role of L1 linguistic
processing procedures in L2 linguistic processing, see Koda, 2005, pp. 112–118).
Unlike processing in the L1, in which both declarative and procedural com-
ponents of the LTM system are activated, with WM operations involving both
explicit and implicit mechanisms depending on the nature of the task (Baars &
Franklin, 2003), L2 learners are constrained by the predominant use of controlled
processes of explicit knowledge, particularly of a lexical/semantic nature, or au-
tomatic processes of L1-based procedural knowledge, which are not necessarily
relevant for L2 task resolution and, as such, are likely to create extraneous diffi-
culties (see below). It should be noted that these processes, being relatively more
sensitive to capacity limitations, tend to impose higher loads on WM, leading
to problems of accuracy and fluency in L2 use. As a result, an increase at the
neural level is observed in prefrontal activity, which is to be expected, given that
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 736
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

novel (unpracticed) WM tasks seem to recruit more brain activation owing to the
need for control (Koziol & Budding, 2009, p. 52). It should further be noted that
the processing of explicit information concerning specific L2 morphosyntactic
features or the processing of implicit information guided by L1 morphosyntactic
routines may not necessarily pave the way for corresponding implicit knowledge
of those features in the L2 (Elder, Warren, Hajek, Manwaring, & Davies, 1999),
which is necessary for their application in real-life contexts. For instance, when
WM operations in the L2 draw on strongly entrenched L1 implicit knowledge in
cases where the learner perceives L2 data through mechanisms optimized for the
L1, L1-based routines that are not optimal for proper linguistic performance in the
L2 are known to occur. As Ellis (2007) puts it, “[t]he L1 implicit representations
conspire in a ‘learned attention’ to language and automatized processing of the L2
in non-optimal L1-tuned ways” (p. 126).

THE EFFECTS OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE AND CONTROLLED

PROCESSING ON L2 READING COMPREHENSION
The overwhelming cognitive reliance on explicit knowledge and controlled pro-
cessing constitutes a serious handicap in the development of reading comprehen-
sion in the L2. To begin with, linguistic tasks that depend on implicit processing
and are therefore automatic in the L1 are handled by controlled processes in the L2,
imposing excessive loads on WM’s limited capacity. To put it differently, implicit
tasks whose processing demands for WM are low in the L1, due to their being
normally handled by “established or stereotyped procedures” (Halford, Cowan, &
Andrews, 2007, p. 271), are processed in the L2 as if they were explicit, thereby
becoming overly effortful. For example, syntactic parsing, which is handled im-
plicitly in the L1 as a computational routine, is likely to be carried out through
explicit procedures reminiscent of item-specific lexical decoding. Clearly, this
tends to pave the way for an overloaded WM, which could easily become inca-
pacitated and therefore seriously hamper efficient processing of larger portions of
a text.7
Given that lexical memory, as a subdivision of the declarative system (Pinker &
Ullman, 2002), is chiefly responsible for handling L2 reading tasks that normally
depend on the procedural system in the L1, the L2 reader tends to focus on
textbound linguistic operations that reflect the processing of surface-level features
of the text (e.g., decoding words). This characteristic symptom of L2 readers
(Alptekin, 2006; Alptekin & Erçetin, 2009; Pulido, 2009) is actually an offshoot
of the declarative system’s modus operandi of processing arbitrarily related pieces
of information with a view to achieving “associative binding” (Ullman, 2001a).
This type of contextual association of individual vocabulary items can at best
set up a “microstructure” of the text, which primarily involves lexical decoding
and local-level proposition binding. As such, it is quite difficult to generate a
“macrostructure” (an overall topical structure), which is necessary for the con-
struction of a textbase and a situation model, as required by currently upheld
construction–integration models of reading (Kintsch, 1998).
In sum, L2 reading could be hampered by more than one source. First, as men-
tioned earlier, the problems caused by the intervention of mechanisms optimized
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 737
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

for the implicit processing of L1 use could be in the way of L2 reading fluency.
Internalizing syntactic regularities implicit in input as a result of input frequency
and input experience, as is done in L1 reading, may not occur properly in the
L2 due to obstacles created by L1-guided mechanisms of implicit processing.
Second, due to the reader’s predominant use of lexical/semantic processing, L2
reading involves the conscious processing of textual information as if it were
wholly explicit. The resulting surface-level processing of the text takes up so
much of the reader’s attentional control that the restricted capacity of WM be-
comes unavailable or partially available for implementing the higher order reading
tasks the reader has to perform. The reader’s excessive focus on lexical decoding
or syntactic parsing, for instance, often takes place at the expense of generating
bridging and elaborative inferences, which are necessary to form a coherent text
model of comprehension and an accurate situation model of text interpretation
(Kintsch, 1998). Even if L2 readers, particularly those in early L2 learning stages,
are able to decipher authors’ propositional messages, they often fail in forming a
situation model of the text. What further exacerbates L2 reading difficulties comes
from lexical memory having to conduct morphosyntactic operations in the L2, for
which it is ill-suited (Morgan-Short et al., 2010). Morphosyntactic knowledge is by
definition procedural, being implicitly and unconsciously acquired in the L1, in the
same way that motor and cognitive skills and habits are formed (Ullman, 2001a,
2001c). The learner’s lack of a procedurally designed morphosyntactic knowledge
base in the L2 necessitates its being rebuilt in declarative terms through controlled
processes of learning. Clearly, this is a difficult and tedious process that requires
L2 learners to recruit adequate consciousness to overcome the L1-based “implicit
routines that are nonoptimal for L2” (Ellis, 2007, p. 126) and to conform to L2
rule-based forms whose incremental familiarity and recurrent usage could promote
the development of implicit knowledge in the L2. Ullman (2004), for example,
believes that L2 morphosyntactic elements become dependent on learners’ pro-
cedural systems in the event they possess an advanced proficiency level in the
target language, indicative of adequate input frequency, extensive language use,
and probably a solid basis in explicit L2 knowledge. Until a high level of L2 expe-
rience and proficiency is achieved, however, L2 learners’ grammatical processing
is proven to rely on lexical/semantic processing mechanisms associated with DM
(Morgan-Short et al., 2010), resulting in their overreliance on nonstructural infor-
mation when parsing the L2 input (e.g., Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Papadopoulou,
2005), to the extent that they are likely to treat syntactic violations as word-level
problems (van Hell & Tokowicz, 2010). One may thus conjecture that for L2
reading performance to become L1-like, a very high degree of L2 proficiency is
necessary.
Nevertheless, there are critics who have a relatively skeptical perspective of
whether proceduralization of morphosyntactic knowledge reaches a nativelike
degree of implicitness and automaticity in the L2. For example, Sabourin and
Haverkort (2003) claim that for the advanced learner’s procedural system to sustain
the L2 morphosyntactic elements, the L1 and the L2 should be structurally similar.
This view is shared by van Hell and Tokowicz (2010), who maintain that unless
the L1 and the L2 are morphosyntactically similar, L2 learners will not be able
to perform automatic structure building processes during L2 sentence processing.
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 738
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

Based on a review of studies that made use of ERPs in L2 acquisition, they

conclude that the main difference between moderately proficient L2 learners and
native speakers or highly proficient L2 users is that the former group’s sentence
processing is characterized by the absence of components indexing early auto-
matic structure building and word-internal morphological processes. Even highly
proficient L2 users are shown not to be identical to native speakers in terms of
their morphosyntactic processing in the L2 (Dowens et al., 2010) and, as indicated
earlier, rely primarily on different, more controlled, neural mechanisms—given the
sensitivity of syntactic processes to maturational constraints (Pakulak & Neville,
2011). These findings are in line with those by Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson
(2000), who note that even those L2 users “who have been identified as indistin-
guishable from native speakers characteristically exhibit non-native features that
are unperceivable except in detailed and systematic linguistic analyses” (p. 150).
In the final analysis, it appears that L2 reading, particularly in its early stages,
is a cumbersome process for late L2 learners not merely because of language- and
discourse-related problems. The paucity of automaticity in processing L2 data and
the overuse of controlled lexical procedures irrespective of their appropriateness in
specific L2 contexts increase the processing load on WM’s limited capacity which,
in turn, becomes incapable of tackling reading tasks that require both higher and
lower order attentional processes, such as generating inferences on the higher
end of the control continuum and developing syntactic knowledge on the lower
end.
The discussion thus far suggests that there are more questions than answers
concerning the role of explicit and implicit knowledge sources in L2 learning
and use, with clear implications for LTM’s neural networks that sustain these
distinct knowledge sources and interact with WM mechanisms. With reference to
L2 reading, in particular, research on the role of explicit and implicit knowledge
in WM processing as well as research on the effects of LTM systems, knowledge
sources, and WM capacity on L2 reading comprehension cannot be considered
adequate and comprehensive.

THE PRESENT STUDY

The present study aimed to explore the relationships between WM capacity in
the L2 and L2 explicit/implicit knowledge sources, embedded in the declara-
tive/procedural memory systems. It further aimed to explore the relationship
between L2 WM and L2 reading comprehension as well as that between L2
explicit/implicit knowledge and L2 reading comprehension. To this end, the fol-
lowing research questions were investigated.

1. Are there significant relationships between explicit/implicit sources of linguistic

knowledge in the L2 and L2 WM capacity?
2. Are there significant relationships between L2 reading and explicit/implicit
sources of linguistic knowledge in the L2 on the one hand, and L2 WM capacity
on the other hand?
3. Do these variables form coherent subsets that are relatively independent of one
another?
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 739
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

It was hypothesized that there should be a statistically significant relationship

between explicit knowledge and WM capacity, as cognitive processes underlying
the operations of DM, involving the learning, representation, and use of explicit lin-
guistic knowledge, and typical WM functions are characterized by consciousness
and attentional control. By contrast, a nonsignificant relationship was expected
to be the case in what concerns the connections between implicit knowledge and
WM functions (Hypothesis 1) because, in the final analysis, all active components
of WM, such as input, rehearsal, visuospatial operations, recall, and report, are
said to be conscious in the L1 (e.g., Baars & Franklin, 2003) and also in the
L2 (e.g., Paradis, 2009). Next, it was assumed that explicit knowledge would
be closely related to L2 reading comprehension rather than implicit knowledge,
considering that late L2 readers rely mostly on explicit knowledge as a result
of their formal educational experience with L2 learning, not to mention the fact
that PM, known to be responsible for implicit knowledge, attenuates with age,
its linguistic functions being taken over chiefly (Ullman 2001b, 2004) or perhaps
initially (Green, 2003) by DM, at least until the learner reaches a high level of
proficiency in the L2. As for the relationship between L2 reading and L2 WM
capacity, a meaningful relationship was expected between the two constructs (Hy-
pothesis 2) in view of available research findings (Alptekin & Erçetin, 2009, 2010;
Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Miyake & Friedman, 1998; Walter, 2004). Based on
these hypothesized relationships, it was assumed that explicit knowledge, L2
WM capacity, and L2 reading comprehension would form a coherent subset in
an exploratory factor analysis, as these variables are characterized by controlled
explicit processes whereas measures of implicit knowledge would form a separate
subset (Hypothesis 3).

METHOD
Participants
The participants in the study were 51 Turkish university students enrolled in an
English-medium university in Turkey. They had been successful on the university’s
English proficiency test, whose minimum pass mark is accepted as the equivalent
of 550 on the paper and pencil version of the Test of English as a Foreign Language.
Moreover, they had obtained high scores on the verbal sections of the countrywide
university entrance examination (ÖSS), which is administered in Turkish and is
similar to the “Critical Reading Section” of the SAT Reasoning Test. Their ages
ranged from 20 to 23. Of the 51 participants 45 were female and 6 were male.
They formed a homogeneous group in terms of their educational background in
that they had all successfully completed a teacher training high school and were
enrolled in university-level English language teaching courses in order to become
teachers of English.

Materials
Materials for the study consisted of a reading span task (RST) to measure WM
capacity (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) in the L2, a number of tests measuring
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 740
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

explicit and implicit linguistic knowledge in the L2 (Ellis, 2009), and a standard-
ized reading comprehension test of English (the Nelson–Denny).

RST. The RST was administered in English, considering the substantial rela-
tionship between L2 WM and L2 reading comprehension, as mentioned earlier.
It should be made explicit that span tasks, of which reading span is a variety, are
designed to assess WM’s processing and storage functions. They are considered
common measures of attentional capacity and control corresponding to the central
executive component of WM (Baddeley, 1986, 2000, 2003). The test used in
the present study was a variation of Daneman and Carpenter’s (1980), whose
wide popularity in WM research stems from its construct validity (Conway et al.,
2005) and reliability (Whitney, Arnett, Driver, & Budd, 2001). It consisted of 42
unrelated simple sentences in the active voice, each 11–13 words in length. Every
sentence ended with a different word. The test involved four levels, starting at two
and extending up to five, with each level containing three trials. A grammaticality
judgment task was incorporated into the RST to ensure that participants processed
every sentence for syntax and did not focus simply on the final words. There were
21 grammatical (e.g., Her younger son may apply for a job in another town) and
21 ungrammatical sentences (e.g., Our next-door neighbors have recently going
abroad by a cruise boat), arranged randomly. Each sentence appeared only once.
Participants were tested on the same sets of sentences. After they finished reading
all three sets at one level, they moved on to Set 1 of the next level. Using Cronbach
α, the internal consistency reliability coefficients for the processing and storage
tasks were found to be 0.83 and 0.79, respectively.
The RST, administered in a computer lab, was delivered on-line by displaying
one sentence after another at 7-s intervals until all the sentences in a set had
been viewed. While processing the sentences, the participants pressed one of two
computer keys to indicate whether a given sentence was grammatical or ungram-
matical. After all the sentences in a set had been viewed, a field box appeared
on the screen for the participants to enter the sentence-final words that they were
able to recall.8 The participants’ judgments concerning the grammaticality of the
sentences represented the processing measure of their reading span. The total
number of accurately recalled sentence-final words was taken as the measure of
storage.9

Tests of explicit and implicit knowledge. An untimed grammaticality judgment

test (UGJT), a timed grammaticality judgment test (TGJT), and an elicited oral
imitation test (EI) were adapted from Ellis and colleagues (2009).10
The UGJT and TGJT aimed to measure explicit and implicit linguistic knowl-
edge, respectively. Both tests contained 68 common sentences, half of which were
grammatical while the other half were ungrammatical. Specifically, the tests were
designed to measure the knowledge of 17 grammatical structures that comprised
both morphological and syntactic features “known to be universally problematic
to learners,” and corresponding to “a broad range of proficiency levels” (Ellis,
2009, p. 42). Among the structures included in the tests were such features as verb
complements, regular past tense, question tags, yes/no questions, modal verbs,
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 741
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

unreal conditionals, indefinite articles, ergative verbs, relative clauses, embedded

questions, dative alternation, comparatives, and adverb placement.
The participants were presented the sentences on a computer screen and were
asked to press “T” if the sentence was grammatically correct and “F” if the sentence
was incorrect. Each item was scored dichotomously as correct or incorrect. A
percentage accuracy score was calculated for each test. No time limit was imposed
for the UGJT, whereas 3.5 s was given for each item on the TGJT. The reason
for the timing of the latter test was that, as indicated by Ellis and Loewen (2005),
“learners would only be able to judge the sentences on the basis of their implicit
knowledge because the speed of the response required preclude[s] access to their
explicit knowledge” (p. 125).
The EI, another test designed to measure implicit linguistic knowledge, was
also used, as implicit knowledge is largely unconscious and nonverbalizable,
thereby being difficult to operationalize and measure. Moreover, it was thought
appropriate to include the EI because it has been shown to be the “best” measure of
implicit knowledge (Ellis, 2009, p. 59). The test consisted of 34 belief statements.
Half of these statements were grammatically correct, whereas the other half were
incorrect. The sentences were presented orally to the participants, who were asked
to first indicate whether they agreed with, disagreed with, or were not sure about
the content of each statement. They were then asked to repeat the sentence orally in
correct English. In other words, the participants were first required to pay attention
to meaning and then to form. Scoring involved allocating a score of 1 if the target
structure was supplied and 0 if it was not supplied or supplied in a different form.

L2 reading comprehension test. The comprehension section of the Nelson–

Denny Reading Test (NDRT) was administered to measure the participants’ L2
reading comprehension. The test consisted of 38 multiple-choice questions requir-
ing the test taker to read paragraphs and answer questions based on their literal
and inferential understanding.11

Procedure
The tests were administered in the following order: TGJT, RST, UGJT, EI, NDRT.
Each test was administered on a different day, the entire process taking two
weeks. For tests of WM capacity and explicit/implicit knowledge, the participants
were given a number of practice sentences. Except for the NDRT, the tests were
administered to participants individually.

Analysis
Descriptive statistics for the five tests were obtained. In order to determine their
internal consistency reliability, Cronbach α for each test was calculated. Pear-
son product-moment correlations were computed to examine the intercorrelations
among the measures. Finally, a principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax
rotation was carried out in order to identify the underlying dimensions among the
variables.
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 742
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the five tests

Mean SD Median Min. Max. α

NDRT 31.92 2.72 32 23 36 0.85

UGJT 58.88 3.62 59 51 66 0.61
TGJT 47.55 5.85 48 35 61 0.69
EI 23.95 2.85 24 15 28 0.65
RST 0.04 0.79 0.06 −1.55 1.41 0.83,a 0.79b

Note: NDRT, Nelson–Denny Reading Test; UGJT, untimed grammaticality judg-

ment test; TGJT, timed grammaticality judgment test; EI, elicited oral imitation
test; RST, reading span task.
a
Value for the processing component.
b
Value for the storage component.

Table 2. Correlational matrix for the five tests

NDRT UGJT TGJT EI

UGJT .32*
TGJT .09 .24
EI .15 .12 .56**
RST .31* .47** .35* .31*

Note: NDRT, Nelson–Denny Reading Test; UGJT, untimed

grammaticality judgment test; TGJT, timed grammaticality
judgment test; EI, elicited oral imitation test; RST, reading span
task.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

RESULTS
Descriptive statistics for all the measures are provided in Table 1. As can be seen
from the standard deviations, the group was rather homogeneous in terms of their
performance on the given tests. An examination of the distributions revealed that
there were no severe violations from normality for each variable.
Pearson product-moment correlations among the scores on the five tests (see
Table 2) indicate that both implicit and explicit knowledge correlate with WM
capacity. However, the strength of the relationship is stronger in the case of explicit
knowledge. This finding partially confirms our first hypothesis, which predicted
no relationship between implicit knowledge and WM capacity.
Table 2 further indicates that L2 reading comprehension has statistically sig-
nificant positive relationships with both explicit linguistic knowledge and WM.
Measures of implicit knowledge, in contrast, are not correlated with reading com-
prehension, confirming the predictions in our second hypothesis.
In order to determine whether these variables form coherent subsets that are
relatively independent of one another, a PCA with varimax rotation was conducted
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 743
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading
Table 3. Principal components analysis summary table

Component Eigenvalue Variance Cumulative

1 2.19 43.82 43.82

2 1.16 23.12 66.94

Table 4. Rotated factor matrix and final

communality estimates

Factor

Test 1 2 h2

NDRT .740 −.030 .549

UGJT .795 .113 .645
RST .693 .380 .624
TGJT .139 .866 .770
EI .076 .868 .760

Note: NDRT, Nelson–Denny Reading Test; UGJT,

untimed grammaticality judgment test; RST,
reading span task; TGJT, timed grammaticality
judgment test; EI, elicited oral imitation test.

(see Table 3). As predicted, a two-factor solution was obtained based on the scree
test, explaining almost 67 percent of the variance.
In interpreting the rotated factor pattern (Table 4), an item was said to load on a
given factor if the factor loading was 0.40 or greater (Hatcher, 1994). Accordingly,
explicit linguistic knowledge, WM capacity, and L2 reading comprehension were
found to load on a single factor, whereas implicit linguistic knowledge loaded on
a separate factor. Table 4 shows that the variables load heavily on their respective
factors and they have weak loadings on the other factor. However, the loading of
WM capacity on the second factor is particularly worth noting as it is quite close to
the cutoff loading of 0.40. In sum, two independent factors are obtained, the first
factor involving chiefly explicit knowledge sources characterized by conscious
control processes and the second involving those that are primarily implicit. These
findings confirm our third hypothesis.

DISCUSSION
In terms of the associations among the three variables in the present study, as
investigated in the first question, the findings point to a significant relationship
between the use of explicit knowledge and WM operations in the L2. The PCA
has shown that these two variables load heavily on a single factor. As pointed
out in the first hypothesis, this was expected given that conscious and intentional
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 744
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

processes of selective attention that are implicated in the control, regulation,

and temporary storage of task-relevant information in WM are also indicative of
cognitive processes of explicit knowledge that direct learners to focus on what
they consider to be the relevant features of the L2 input.
What is perhaps unexpected is the presence of a significant correlation between
implicit knowledge and WM operations, disconfirming the second part of the
first hypothesis. That certain WM operations can actually take place outside of
conscious awareness and without intention is further suggested by the results of
the PCA, with WM’s moderate loading on the second factor that characterizes
implicit processes. This seemingly counterintuitive finding is not without prece-
dence, however, as there is some research in cognitive psychology whose results
refute the prevalent position that WM operates intentionally and consciously only
on tasks that appear to be explicit (e.g., Halford et al., 2007; Hassin et al., 2009;
Reber & Kotovsky, 1997). Evidently, although WM is primarily responsible for
the controlled processing and temporary storage of explicit linguistic data, it also
attends to the input that could be processed automatically because the particular
input is “deemed” to be of the kind that may be processed through the mediation of
unconscious resources recruited by WM’s conscious components (Baars, 2003).
In a way, the conscious components of WM help mobilize and guide unconscious
routines that carry out automatic processing of implicit tasks (Baars & Franklin,
2003) while they sustain controlled attentional processing and temporary storage
for complex explicit tasks. It is even possible for certain explicit tasks to have
aspects that could be operated on without conscious intention and outside of
conscious awareness in the event WM’s limited capacity is not able to handle the
cognitive overload stemming from task complexity (Hassin et al., 2009; Reber &
Kotovsky, 1997). Hassin and colleagues (2009) go one step further and criticize
the current paradigm of WM on the grounds that it views all active components of
WM as predominantly conscious and all major WM tasks as “blatantly explicit”
(p. 665). They propose a change in the paradigm so as to accommodate an “implicit
working memory,” which they consider to be equally operative even in higher order
cognitive processes (p. 667). They maintain that WM is capable of operating out-
side conscious awareness, handling tasks that require implicit processing and that
are less sensitive to capacity constraints. Thus, technically speaking, WM appears
to be the central executive for both controlled and automatic types of processing,
whose operations require attentional processing and temporary storage, or what is
succinctly referred to as “attentional resource capacity/allocation” (Montgomery,
Polunenko, & Marinellie, 2009, p. 488). In a way, its operating mode is reminiscent
of the metaphorical manner in which Dörnyei (2009) describes the functionality
of explicit knowledge in L2 use as creating “a conscious channel for unconscious
flow of implicit processing” (p. 171). In sum, WM can be said to play an important
role in handling lower and higher level explicit linguistic tasks through controlled
processes in addition to determining those implicit linguistic tasks that could be
handled automatically.
It appears that the interaction between the two complementary systems of
knowledge takes place within the control/automaticity continuum, with the “cen-
tral executive” allowing for automaticity to manage those tasks that can be handled
implicitly while inhibiting the controlled processes of explicit information. The
presence of the meaningful association between implicit L2 knowledge and L2
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 745
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

WM capacity, albeit moderate, in addition to the substantial relationship between

L2 explicit knowledge and L2 WM capacity, could be interpreted as being in-
dicative of the coexistence of explicit and implicit knowledge sources and their
underlying processes in the WM. These results are, in principle, consonant with
the DP model. They suggest that late L2 learners with an advanced degree of target
language proficiency, such as the sample in the present study, are able to perform
WM operations that represent the rule-governed forms of L2 explicit knowledge
as well as the implicit, combinatorial procedures of L2 morphosyntax.
In connection with the second research question, the significant correlation
between L2 WM capacity and L2 reading comprehension on one hand and, on
the other, the high loading of WM capacity and L2 reading comprehension on
the first factor corroborate previous evidence obtained between the two con-
structs (e.g., Alptekin & Erçetin, 2010; Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Leeser, 2007;
Walter, 2004). WM, in fact, contributes significantly to reading comprehension as
it processes and temporarily stores information to tackle complex cognitive tasks,
which reading comprehension equally entails.12
On a different level, the significant relationship between explicit knowledge and
L2 reading comprehension and their high loadings on a single factor confirm our
prediction in the second hypothesis and stands in stark contrast to the lack of a
relationship between implicit knowledge and reading. In the light of this finding,
it is safe to posit that L2 reading comprehension relies fundamentally on the
use of explicit linguistic knowledge, characterized by the consciously controlled
processes of the DM system, with a focus on the lexical/semantic features of the
text. This reliance is in tune with the propensity for text boundedness and the
resulting vocabulary-biased processing for which L2 readers are generally known
(Alptekin, 2006; Horiba, 1996; Taillefer, 1996). McDonald (2000), for instance,
describes how additional memory loads are imposed on late L2 learners because
of their strenuous efforts to decode surface forms in texts, particularly in those
instances in which the forms represent structures that are also relatively more
difficult for native speakers themselves.
The lack of a relationship between implicit L2 knowledge and L2 reading
performance brings a number of possibilities to mind. One is that, despite their
advanced level of L2 proficiency and their WM processing both explicit and
implicit information, the participants were not able to make use of the implicit
aspects of their L2 competence in reading texts in the target language because, as
indicated by VanPatten (2004), skill development constitutes a completely separate
phenomenon from the creation of a specific linguistic system (p. 27). A developing
linguistic system, such as an implicit (chiefly morphosyntactic) knowledge base,
does not necessarily lead to the fluent and accurate performance of a skill such
as reading. It is likely that the transferability of implicit linguistic knowledge
to the ability to apply its proceduralized routines to L2 reading performance is
quite narrow, in view of the need for “extensive amount of exposure to print
and frequent encounters with repeated units [of formal features] in consistent
contexts” (Grabe, 2009, p. 62). Admittedly, despite their advanced proficiency
level in the L2, the participants in the present study appeared to lack the relevant
practice effects that would have enabled them to apply their implicit knowledge of
linguistic parsing, routines, habits, and associations into reading comprehension
processes. A second reason could have been their self-perception of inadequacy in
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 746
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

the kind of “socioculturally appropriate background knowledge shared between

L1 writers and readers” (Nassaji, 2002, p. 643), which likely compelled them to
rely more on their lexical/semantic resources in extracting meaning from L2 texts,
thereby relegating the role of morphosyntactic features in comprehension to an
insignificant status. Finally, this finding should perhaps lead us into pondering on
DeKeyser’s (2009) concern over L2 learners’ highly automatized knowledge not
necessarily being qualitatively identical to implicit knowledge—in the restricted
sense the latter construct has often been defined in cognitive psychology in terms
of its relationship to language (i.e., L1) use.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between explicit/implicit
knowledge sources and memory systems with reference to L2 reading compre-
hension. The findings point to positive relationships between L2 readers’ WM
capacity in the L2 and both their explicit and implicit linguistic knowledge of
the L2. They further point to L2 reading comprehension being closely associated
with explicit linguistic knowledge and L2 WM capacity. In fact, the PCA reveals
that these three variables load on a single factor. By contrast, implicit knowledge
appears not to be related to L2 readers’ comprehension processes, even for those
with a relatively high level of L2 proficiency (such as the sample in the present
study), despite the role it plays in their L2 WM operations along with L2 explicit
knowledge.
These findings suggest that the L2 learner’s linguistic knowledge and WM
operations involving the computation and maintenance of both explicit and im-
plicit information are associated with L2 reading performance. It is possible for
those learners with a high degree of WM capacity to process L2 texts more effi-
ciently because they may generate more and better inferences, integrate accessed
knowledge with the new information, and be more cognizant of new information
in the text—those aspects of reading that WM capacity is said to account for
(Daneman & Hannon, 2007). In this context, the manipulation and maintenance
of explicit information is the basis for WM operations, as the learner has to attend
to the input consciously. However, WM’s conscious components may mobilize
and guide unconscious routines of implicit knowledge to process certain reading
tasks if they “see fit.”
In contrast, the absence of the implicit components of L2 knowledge in L2 read-
ing performance, along with the participants’ propensity for text-bound processing
through lexical/semantic means in the L2, is likely to hamper reading comprehen-
sion processes. For instance, surface-level (e.g., syntactic parsing) and textbase-
level (e.g., anaphoric resolution) procedures subserved by controlled processes
may be in the way of higher level conceptual aspects of reading (e.g., generating
inferences). As controlled processes of explicit knowledge make high processing
demands and are subject to capacity constraints, they may overload WM resources
in general.
In the final analysis, the present study is not without its limitations. To begin
with, caution should be exercised in generalizing the results to all L2 learners
irrespective of their degrees of L2 proficiency. It needs to be emphasized that
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 747
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

although the participants in this study were proficient L2 learners, their command
of the L2 was not nativelike. It seems that late L2 learners need to become highly
proficient in their L2 in order to be able to perform reading tasks more like efficient
native speakers. Hence, it is suggested that future research on the subject take the
proficiency factor into account as an important variable and replicate the present
research with late L2 learners at different proficiency levels. Another reason why
these findings should be treated cautiously has to do with the relatively small size
of the sample (51) and the correlational (vs. causal) nature of the factor analysis
results themselves. A third reason may be attributed to instrumentation in that the
lack of “pure” measures of implicit and explicit knowledge might pave the way
for problems involving construct validity and instrument reliability, as suggested
by DeKeyser (2003, 2009). With these caveats in mind, it nevertheless seems
fairly well established that explicit lexical/semantic knowledge and L2 WM have
robust relationships with L2 reading comprehension, particularly among late L2
learners who have an advanced proficiency level in the L2 but who do not possess
near-native fluency. Fourth, and finally, given the treatment of reading as a global
construct in this study, future work should focus on different components of L2
reading, such as literal understanding versus inferential comprehension, in order to
explore whether knowledge sources and WM capacity affect each component dif-
ferentially. It is possible, at least in the construction–integration framework of read-
ing paradigms (Kintsch, 1998), that in the absence or paucity of implicit knowledge
contributing to reading, it will be difficult to form a microstructure of the text at
the level of literal understanding, which in turn is likely to impede the process of
generating a macrostructure embodying the textbase and a situation model.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research underlying the study was supported by a Bogaziçi University Research Fund
grant (Project No. 5016). The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful
comments on an earlier version of this paper.

NOTES
1. With a view to providing explanatory adequacy, scholars sometimes account for
the sources of knowledge not necessarily in terms of their distinct epistemic nature
but in relation to their distinguishing modes of operation. For example, Vokey and
Higham (1999) claim that any proper understanding of the distinction between explicit
and implicit knowledge lies in the understanding of the distinction between control
and automaticity, with the necessity for the former pair of concepts to track the
latter rather than being defined by a “dissociation logic based on some explicitness”
(p. 788).
2. Late L2 learners are those “who learned their L2 in middle childhood (around 8–
10 years) or later, well after adequate L1 language skills had been achieved” (van
Hell & Tokowicz, 2010, p. 44).
3. Given that in connectionist and emergentist accounts of interface, learners de-
velop their implicit knowledge by “grammaticalizing” whatever constructions they
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 748
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

processed and produced, it is not possible to speak of an explicit knowledge source

that represents a consciously devised, rule-based grammatical system. As DeKeyser
(2003) indicates, the lack of an explicit knowledge system “makes the debate over
implicit/explicit learning of rules moot; there are no rules in the connectionist concept
of knowledge, only statistical associations between input and output patterns, and all
knowledge is acquired and represented completely implicitly” (p. 329).
4. Clearly, “similar” does not mean “identical.” Recent ERP and neuroimaging studies
of late L2 learners with a high level of L2 proficiency show that these learners rely
on different neural mechanisms than native speakers of that language (Pakulak &
Neville, 2011).
5. Despite the language-independent nature of WM capacity, there is some evidence
pointing to L2 WM’s relatively direct relationship with L2 skills (Alptekin & Erçetin,
2010, 2011; Geva & Ryan, 1993; Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Havik, 2005; Walter,
2004), with L1 WM being chiefly a mediator (Miyake & Friedman, 1998).
6. Some of the intervening effects could involve automatic processes that normally
implicate the basal ganglia.
7. When placed on the continuum from control to automaticity, it can be said that
text decoding procedures in reading are mostly automatic, implicit, and rapid. They
involve swift transitions from graphemes to phonemes to words as long as there are no
orthographic difficulties arising from different scripts. In contrast, text comprehension
involves controlled, explicit, and slow procedures. For example, context-free word
recognition (lexical access) is generally a simple process of form-meaning mapping
as long as the reader is familiar with the concept the word represents and is able to
decode the graphic symbols on the page. Conversely, using context clues to infer word
meaning is a demanding conscious process that, as Grabe (2009) points out, slows
reading comprehension to a type of problem-solving procedure (p. 72). Similarly,
anaphor resolution can be quite complex because anaphors may go unresolved if
no referent is active in the reader’s WM or if no one referent is adequately salient
to warrant selection when a number of candidate referents are activated (Kintsch &
Rawson, 2007, pp. 214–215).
8. No points were deducted for spelling mistakes, as there were very few misspelled
sentence-final words due to the participants in the current study having an advanced
level of L2 proficiency.
9. A composite WM score was obtained by converting word recall and sentence judg-
ment scores to z scores and taking their average, as suggested by Waters and Caplan
(1996) and recently implemented in a number of studies (e.g., Alptekin & Erçetin,
2010; Leeser, 2007; Mackey et al., 2010; Walter, 2004).
10. Dörnyei (2009) indicates that there is insufficient relevant research on implicit and
explicit learning in the L2 domain due to the lack of valid measures of L2 implicit
and explicit knowledge. He views R. Ellis’ efforts to develop construct measures,
such as the UGJT, TGJT, and EI, as “forward pointing” (p. 176)—a judgment also
shared by DeKeyser (2009), who considers Ellis’ extensive work on the subject a
“promising approach” (p. 122). In a similar vein, Hulstijn (2005) refers to Ellis’
work as signalling “a crucial moment in rendering theories of implicit and explicit
knowledge and learning testable” (p. 137).
11. The test consists of seven reading passages taken from science, social science, and
humanities texts used at the high school and college levels in the United States. The
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 749
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

length of the texts ranges from 200 to 600 words and the number of questions for each
passage ranges between five and eight. The skills tested include understanding explicit
details, understanding main ideas, drawing conclusions, and making inferences.
12. A reviewer suggested that the relationship between WM and reading comprehension
might be attributed to the use of the RST. It is true that the RST involves a reading task
and RST takers have to judge the grammaticality of the sentences while trying to recall
each sentence-final word. However, this apparent similarity does not affect the validity
of the RST as a measure of WM capacity considering research findings demonstrating
significant correlations among all three span tasks (e.g., reading span, operation span,
and counting span) in relation to predicting reading comprehension ability (Conway
et al., 2005). Most importantly, Daneman and Hannon (2007) refute the claim about
the RST tapping reading ability, based on their large-scale research on the construct
validity of the measure (Daneman & Hannon, 2007; Hannon & Daneman, 2001).
Their research has shown that, under text-available conditions, reading span was a
good predictor of VSAT performance, yet the Nelson–Denny, a standardized reading
comprehension test, was a better predictor. Under text-unavailable conditions, even
though reading span remained a good predictor of VSAT performance, the predictive
power of the Nelson–Denny was considerably reduced. They argue that the reversal
of the predictive powers is an indication that reading span is far from being simply
another measure of reading comprehension skill and is actually “a measure of dynamic
working memory system that processes and temporarily stores information in the
service of complex cognitive tasks such as reading comprehension . . . and verbal
reasoning” (Daneman & Hannon, 2007, p. 40).

REFERENCES
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language
representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242–275.
Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. System,
34, 494–508.
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Assessing the relationship of working memory to L2 reading: Does
the nature of comprehension process and reading span task make a difference? System, 37,
627–639.
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential
comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 206–219.
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2011). The effects of working memory capacity and content familiarity
on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 235–266.
Baars, B. J. (2003). Working memory requires conscious processes, not vice versa. In N. Osaka (Ed.),
Neural basis of consciousness (pp. 19–34). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Baars, B. J., & Franklin, S. (2003). How conscious experience and working memory interact. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 166–172.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication
Disorders, 36, 189–208.
Bowden, H. W., Gelfand, M. P., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Verbal inflectional morphology in L1
and L2 Spanish: A frequency effects study examining storage versus composition. Language
Learning, 60, 44–87.
Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1994). Working memory constraints in comprehension:
Evidence from individual differences, aphasia, and aging. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 750
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholin-
guistics, 27, 3–42.
Clahsen, H., & Neubauer, K. (2010). Morphology, frequency, and the processing of derived words in
native and non-native speakers. Lingua, 120, 2627–2637.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005).
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 12, 769–786.
Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah
(Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control
(pp. 62–101). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2007). What do working memory span tasks like reading span really
measure? In N. Osaka, R. H. Logie, & M. D’Esposito (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of
working memory (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.
De Diego Balaguer, R., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (2010). Contributions to the functional neuroanatomy
of morphosyntactic processing in L2. Language Learning, 60, 231–259.
De Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening?: An experimental
study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205–234.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2009). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In M. H.
Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 119–138). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. M., & Juffs, A. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 437–454). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 22, 735–808.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dowens, M. G., Vergara, M., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Morpho-syntactic processing in
late second language learners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1870–1887.
Elder, C. J., Warren, J., Hajek, J., Manwaring, D., & Davies, A. (1999). Metalinguistic knowledge: How
important is it in studying a language at university? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
22, 81–95.
Ellis, N. C. (2004). The processes of second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams,
S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition
(pp. 49–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
Ellis, N. C. (2007). Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 6, pp. 119–132). New York: Springer.
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54,
227–275.
Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen,
C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second
language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–25). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R., & Loewen, S. (2005). Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicit knowl-
edge in Ellis (2005). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 119–126.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2009). Implicit and explicit
knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity
and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 751
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms
of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Fabbro, F. (1999). The neurolinguistics of bilingualism: An introduction. East Sussex: Psychology
Press.
Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1993). Linguistic and cognitive correlates of academic skills in first and
second languages. Language Learning, 43, 5–42.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Green, D. W. (2003). The neural basis of the lexicon and the grammar in L2 acquisition. In R. van
Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (Eds.), The interface between syntax and the lexicon in
second language acquisition (pp. 197–208). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Halford, G. S., Cowan, N., & Andrews, G. (2007). Separating cognitive capacity from knowledge: A
new hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 236–242.
Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences
in the component processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
103–128.
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25–38.
Hassin, R. R., Bargh, J. A., Engell, A. D., & McCulloch, K. C. (2009). Implicit working memory.
Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 665–678.
Hatcher, L. (1994). Step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural
equation modelling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Havik, E. (2005, September). Working memory and second language acquisition. Paper presented at
the 15th Annual Conference of EUROSLA, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Horiba, Y. (1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading: Language competence, textual coherence,
and inferences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 433–473.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of
second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193–223.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-
language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129–140.
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2000). Who can become native-like in a second language? All,
some, or none? Studia Linguistica, 54, 150–166.
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004).
The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuo-
spatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189–
217.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kintsch, W., Healy, A., Hegarety, M., Pennington, B., & Salthouse, T. (1999). Eight questions and
some general issues. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms
of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 412–441). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2007). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The
science of reading (pp. 209–226). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Koziol, L. F., & Budding, D. E. (2009). Subcortical structures and cognition: Implications for neu-
ropsychological assessment. New York: Springer.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Prentice–
Hall.
Leeser, M. J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical
form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270.
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified
output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533.
McDonald, J. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition
and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 395–423.
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 752
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

McLaughlin, J., Tanner, D., Pitknen, I., Frenck-Mestre, C., Inoue, K., Valentine, G., et al. (2010). Brain
potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning. Language Learning, 60, 123–150.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working
memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning:
Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Montgomery, J. W., Polunenko, A., & Marinellie, S. A. (2009). Role of working memory in children’s
understanding spoken narrative: A preliminary investigation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30,
485–509.
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2010). Second language acquisition of
gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study.
Language Learning, 60, 154–193.
Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading com-
prehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52, 439–481.
Newman, A. J., Ullman, M. T., Pancheva, R., Waligura, D. L., & Neville, H. J. (2007). An ERP study
of regular and irregular English past tense inflection. NeuroImage, 34, 435–445.
Osaka, M., & Osaka, N. (1992). Language-independent working memory as measured by Japanese
and English reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 287–289.
Osaka, M., Osaka, N., & Groner, R. (1993). Language-independent working memory: Evidence from
German and French reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 117–118.
Pakulak, E., & Neville, H. J. (2011). Maturational constraints on the recruitment of early processes for
syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2452–2465.
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second
Language Research, 21, 98–120.
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
6, 456–463.
Pliatsikas, C. (2010). Grammatical processing in second language learners of English. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Reading.
Pulido, D. (2009). How involved are American L2 learners of Spanish in lexical input processing tasks
during reading? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 31–58.
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Reber, P. J., & Kotovsky, K. (1997). Implicit learning in problem solving: The role of working memory
capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 178–203.
Reber, P. J., & Squire, L. R. (1998). Encapsulation of implicit and explicit memory in sequence
learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 248–263.
Sabourin, L. L., & Haverkort, M. (2003). Neural substrates of representation and processing of a
second language. In H. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. J. Towell (Eds.), The lexicon–
syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 175–195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguis-
tics, 2, 159–168.
Squire, L. R. (1986). Mechanisms of memory. Science, 232, 1612–1619.
Squire, L. R. (1987). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
Squire, L. R. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys,
and humans. Psychological Review, 99, 195–231.
Squire, L. R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobi-
ology of Learning and Memory, 82, 171–177.
Taillefer, G. (1996). L2 reading ability: Further insights into the short-circuit hypothesis. Modern
Language Journal, 80, 461–477.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, B. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention,
memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second
language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ullman, M. T. (2001a). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The
declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.
Applied Psycholinguistics 34:4 753
Erçetin & Alptekin: Explicit/implicit knowledge, WM, and L2 reading

Ullman, M. T. (2001b). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psy-
cholinguistic Research, 30, 37–69.
Ullman, M. T. (2001c). A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model.
Nature, 2, 717–726.
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model.
Cognition, 92, 231–270.
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The
declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language
acquisition: Methods, theory and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown Uni-
versity Press.
Ullman, M. T. (2007). The biocognition of the mental lexicon. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 267–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ullman, M. T, Corkin, S., Coppola, M., Hickok, G., Growdon, J. H., Koroshetz, W. J., et al. (1997).
A neural dissociation within language: Evidence that the mental dictionary is part of declara-
tive memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the procedural system. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 266–276.
van den Noort, M., Bosch, P., & Hugdahl, K. (2006). Foreign language proficiency and working
memory capacity. European Psychologist, 11, 289–296.
van Hell, J. G., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Event-related brain potentials and second language learning:
Syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second Language
Research, 26, 43–74.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Pro-
cessing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vokey, J. R., & Higham, P. A. (1999). Implicit knowledge as automatic, latent knowledge. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 22, 787.
Walenski, M., & Ullman, M. T. (2005). The science of language. Linguistic Review, 22, 327–346.
Walter, C. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations
of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25, 315–339.
Wartenburger, I., Heekeren, H. R., Burchert, F., De Bleser, R., & Villringer, A. (2003). Grammaticality
judgments on sentences with and without movement of phrasal constituents—An event-related
fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16, 301–314.
Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its
relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 51–79.
Whitney, P., Arnett, P. A., Driver, A., & Budd, D. (2001). Measuring central executive functioning:
What’s in a reading span? Brain and Cognition, 45, 1–14.