Topic

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO INTERLANGUAGE FOSSILZATION

IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

Submitted to: Dr. Samad Baloch

Submitted by: Miss Salma Imran

Submission date: 03/07/2019

Semester : 2nd (MPhil in English Linguistics)

Department of English

Kohat University of science and technology

Contents
INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Why Does Fossilization Happen? .................................................................................................................. 4
Classification of Fossilization:................................................................................................................... 4
a. Individual fossilization and Group fossilization: ........................................................................... 4
b. Temporary fossilization and permanent fossilization: ................................................................... 5
Types of Fossilization: ............................................................................................................................... 5
a. Phonological fossilization: ............................................................................................................. 5
b. Morphological fossilization: .......................................................................................................... 5
c. Syntactic fossilization: ................................................................................................................... 6
d. Semantic fossilization: ................................................................................................................... 6
e. Pragmatic fossilization:.................................................................................................................. 6
Causal Factors of Fossilization: ..................................................................................................................... 6
a. Language transfer: ............................................................................................................................. 6
b. Training transfer (Based on Instruction): ........................................................................................... 7
c. Learning strategy: .............................................................................................................................. 7
d. Overgeneralization: ............................................................................................................................ 7
THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS: .................................................................................................. 8
Conclusion: .................................................................................................................................................... 9
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO INTERLANGUAGE FOSSILZATION
IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

INTRODUCTION:
Interlanguage fossilization is a phenomenon of second language acquisition (SLA) in
which second language learners turn linguistic features that are correct in their first language into
permanent errors in the way they speak and write the new language. In other words, they develop
and retain their own, personal linguistic system that is self-contained and different from both
their first language and the target language. Such a linguistic system has been variously called
an interlanguage. According to Corder, this temporary and changing grammatical system,
interlanguage, which is constructed by the learner, approximates the grammatical system of the
target language. In the process of second language acquisition, interlanguage continually evolves
into an ever-closer approximation of the target language, and ideally should advance gradually
until it becomes equivalent, or nearly equivalent, to the target language. However, during the
second language learning process, an interlanguage may reach one or more temporary restricting
phases when its development appears to be detained. This is referred to as fossilization. This
linguistic phenomenon, interlanguage fossilization, can occur despite all reasonable attempts at
learning. Fossilization includes those items, rules, and sub-systems that second language learners
tend to retain in their interlanguage. This occurs particularly in adult second language learners'
interlanguage system. Fossilization, thus, is a sort of stagnation in secondary language acquisition
that cannot be overcome.

Selinker first put forwarded the notion of fossilization in the paper Interlanuage in 1972. He
noted that 95% of L2 learners failed to reach the same level of L1 competence from his
observation. It is a mechanism which underlies surface linguistic material which speakers will
tend to keep in their IL productive performance, no matter what the age of the learner or the
amount of instruction he receives in the TL. Selinker and Lamendella (1978) redefined
fossilization as a permanent interruption of IL learning before the learner has attained TL
norms at all levels of linguistic structure and in all discourse domains in spite of the learner’s
positive ability, opportunity, and motivation to learn and acculturate into target society.

The notion of fossilization has been interpreted differently by different scholars since it was
proposed. For instance, there are terms like backsliding, stabilized errors, learning plateau,
typical error, persistent non-target-like performance, de-acceleration of the learning process,
ingrained errors, systematic use of erroneous forms, cessation of learning, structural
 persistence, ultimate attainment, long-lasting free variation, persistent difficulty, and inability
to fully master target language features describing the similar meaning, which lead to
confusion for quite a long time.

Selinker believes fossilization to be an unavoidable phenomenon no matter what the age of the
learner or amount of explanation or instruction he receives in the target language. The concept of
fossilization in SLA research is so intrinsically related to interlanguage that Selinker considers it
to be a fundamental phenomenon of all SLA and not just adult learners.

Despite debates, fossilization is generally accepted as a fact of life in the process of SLA.

Why Does Fossilization Happen?

There's no real rule determining when certain users may begin to fossilize. It varies widely by the
individual and by the environment in which the language is learned.Fossilization most often
occurs in an inadequate learning environment. This usually means learning a language in a
classroom, as opposed to learning it in the country where it is natively spoken. Many aspects of a
language simply cannot be taught in a classroom, where one generally learns a highly academic
version of the tongue, as opposed to the colloquial language. However, fossilization can still
occur despite complete immersion in a foreign language environment for decades, a well-
documented phenomenon among, for example, immigrants. Fossilization often means that
certain aspects of the language were learned incompletely or incorrectly, such as grammatical
features like conjugating verbs in the wrong fashion or using the wrong vocabulary, in such a
manner that they cannot be unlearned and replaced with correct usage.

Fossilization may also consist of a sort of subconscious clinging to aspects of the learner's
mother tongue, for instance, with syntax and phonology. This may reflect an inability to similarly
“unlearn" characteristics of a mother language for the purpose of learning another. It is generally
observed that the native language is so deeply hardwired into the brain that its paradigms cannot
be replaced when attempting to learn a new language .

Classification of Fossilization:
Fossilization can be classified as given below:

a. Individual fossilization and Group fossilization:

According to Selinker (1978), interlanguage fossilization falls into two categories, namely
individual fossilization and group fossilization. The former is the persistence of individual
 learner’s IL development, while the latter is the plateau in the diachronic development of a
community language. Usually, individual fossilization consists of two types:
 Error reappearance
 Language competence fossilization.

Error reappearance refers to the inappropriate interlanguage structures that are thought to have
been corrected but continue to appear regularly. It can be found in IL of beginners or learners
with low proficiency. Language competence fossilization refers to the plateau in the development
of L2 learners’ phonological, grammatical, lexical and pragmatic competence. It is found in L2
learners who have been learning TL for a long period of time and arrived at a relatively high
level. In fact, repeated errors are often the demonstrations of competence fossilization.
If fossilized language competence becomes pervasive in a community, group fossilization comes
into being. Such pervasion often leads to forming different varieties. Indian English and
Singapore English are good cases in point.

b. Temporary fossilization and permanent fossilization:

Selinker also classified fossilization into temporary fossilization and permanent fossilization.
Temporary fossilization, also called stabilization, indicates that fossilized interlanguage
consists of learning plateau “where development of given TL features are simply ‘arrested’ or
‘inhibited’ for shorter or longer periods of time. Researchers assume that temporarily arrested
IL development can be susceptible to defossilization. It has also been referred to as soft
fossilization or jellification.
Permanent fossilization takes place as a result of social, psychological and interactive
variables.

Types of Fossilization:
Fossilization is a linguistic phenomenon in its own right and manifested as deviant forms from
TL. It occurs at all levels, from phonological layer to pragmatic layer.

a. Phonological fossilization:
Phonological fossilization refers to the repetition of phonological errors which result from the
incorrect acquisition of pronunciation of L2, usually affected by L1.

b. Morphological fossilization:
English has got a variety of changes in morphology and, therefore, has various grammatical
morphemes. The most common problems lay in two aspects, inflectional morpheme and article.
The third-person singular –s is a facet of syntactic agreement such as drinks and is suffixed to
lexical verbs and auxiliaries such as has. However, there are other markers for third-person
singular, such as buses, crises, and criteria. When and where to put which article stays as a
mystery for certain amount of learners even those who with higher proficiency.

c. Syntactic fossilization:
Different languages have their own syntactic rules. The most typical manifestation of syntactic
fossilization among Chinese students is presented in tense. Chinese does not have obvious tense
differentiation, whereas English has present tense and past tense in general that can be further
divided into sixteen categories. Not to mention complicated marker system for past tense and
past participle tense, it often takes time for Chinese students to decide the right kind of tense. In
the situation that they cannot make clear distinction, they have to turn to their instinct for help
from time to time and thus fossilization occurs.

d. Semantic fossilization:
Semantic fossilization refers to the use of language forms that exist in TL but do not represent
the meanings L2 learners intend to express in the context. For example, the word individualism
is commendatory in the capitalism world but derogatory in socialism China, dragon is the
symbol of evil in the western culture but the symbol of power in China. If a Chinese wants to
describe a past patient but forget the word die, he may use go to the west, the euphemism form
for die, but western listeners may feel confused.

e. Pragmatic fossilization:
Due to the close relationship between pragmatics and semantics, fossilization in the two aspects
is interrelated and overlapping. A pragmatic deviance is also termed “pragmatic failure” by
Thomas (1983). In her view, pragmatic failure takes place in the cross-cultural communication
and refers to the “inability to understand what is meant by what is said”. Inappropriate
language use results in misunderstanding, embarrassment, and even insult.

Causal Factors of Fossilization:

The following may become the causal factors of fossilization:

a. Language transfer:
Selinker (1972) believed that some language rules in the learner’s IL are transferred from
his/her L1. The errors in the use of L2 result mainly from L1, and the difference between L1
and the L2 is the reason for the occurrence of errors. That’s why the transfer of L1 rules can
lead to fossilization.

The transfer of L1 can be positive or negative. Positive transfer refers to that the similarities
shared by the L1 and L2 help second language acquisition. Likewise, negative transfer refers to
the differences between L1 and L2 that interfere in second language acquisition. The negative
transfer of L1 is what the behaviorists believe to be proactive inhibition; that is to say, the
influence of what has been previously learned appears in the context of and interrupts what is
learned afterwards.

b. Training transfer (Based on Instruction):

Graham (1981) suggested that one of the major causes for fossilization of incorrect language
forms is the lack of formal instruction in English. This researcher argued that “learning simply
by contact has led many students to devise IL or idiosyncratic languages with rules often wildly
different from those of Standard English”

c. Learning strategy:

In the process of learning a second language, fossilization caused by the incorrect

application of learning strategies is the most common. Sims (1989) suggested that
“someplace along the IL continuum, inappropriate or misapplied learning strategies could
lead to fossilization of some features (phonological, morphological, syntactic, lexical,
psycholinguistic, or socio-cultural).”

Learning strategies refer not only to the overall strategies but also to the explicit methods the
learner adopts in the process of second language learning, and the former is more likely to
cause fossilization of language competence. The appropriate application of learning strategies
helps process the TL input and, therefore, improves L2 learning quality. Some learners,
however, may turn to learning strategies to such an extent as overgeneralization, simplification,
incomplete rule application and inadequate declarative knowledge of L2.

The repeated use of unsuccessful strategies, i.e., those strategies which do not enable
competition of a given language learning task, could impede a learner’s progress. The proposed
relationship of fossilization and learning strategies… could be a key to the remediation of
systematized errors, as the role of the learner information processing in the second language
acquisition process becomes more clearly understood.

d. Overgeneralization:
Overgeneralization involves the use of existing L2 knowledge by extending it to new IL forms.
It happens when people apply a grammatical rule across all members of a grammatical class
without making the appropriate exceptions. In fact, language overgeneralization always
indicates the ignorance of rule restrictions, including semantic restrictions of lexis or other
linguistic items. For instance, using the -ed suffix to indicate past tense for verbs like "go" and
"think."

The reason for which overgeneralization is important in L2 acquisition is that it leads to failure
in detecting the errors for language learners. The phenomenon always occurs unconsciously.
Without timely instruction and correction, the errors will stay for as long as it can do.

THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS:

The Critical Period Hypothesis has been a topic of interest and the subject of debate among
linguists for many decades. Controversy has existed since its inception and there are many
questions at the heart of the debate for and against its existence:
 Is there a biological link between age and the ability to acquire language and if so, to what
extent?
 What happens when this “window of opportunity” no longer exists?
 Does the evidence support or undermine the arguments for its existence?

The Critical Period Hypothesis, at its most basic, is the theory that successful language
acquisition occurs before puberty. It embraces the notion that children are able to learn
L2 successfully while adults are not by theorizing that there is a stage in the maturation of
human beings during which language acquisition is possible in a natural fashion and that
true language acquisition cannot take place before and after this period. The first few
years of life are viewed as crucial for acquiring language skills. If the individual misses
the “window” then it will no longer be possible to achieve a full command of language
skills. In other words, those who learn languages before puberty, the theoretical “critical
period”, will have a better chance of acquiring normal or native-like skills than those who
learn after this period in time.

The concept for this theory was originally proposed by Penfield & Roberts (1959) and later
developed by Lenneberg (1967). In his hypothesis, he advanced the theory that this critical period
occurs between the ages of two and ends at puberty. Any attempts to acquire language after the
end of this period would not be as successful or as fully developed as those commenced within
the critical period. Lenneberg’s theory, however, focused only on first language acquisition. The
question as to whether this theory also applied to second language acquisition was left open.
Lenneberg’s (1967) argument consisted of two parts. First, he reviewed all the available evidence
dealing with the theories that all normal language learning takes place during childhood.
Second, he proposed the existence of a mechanism that was fundamentally neurological in nature
and was responsible for a maturational change in learning abilities. He proposed that when the
brain reaches its adult values by puberty, it loses the plasticity and reorganizational capacities it
needs and uses when acquiring language. The theory was used to establish the idea of a critical
period for language learning in first language acquisition and then extended into a critical period
for second language acquisition. Unlike first language acquisition, evidence for a critical period
in second language acquisition is more limited and originates from arguments of theory
and biology. Although the theory is much less widely accepted in second language acquisition,
many researchers have accepted this theory as viable. The principal controversy about the Critical
Period Hypothesis focuses on the debate of whether it exists and if so, what is the critical period
cut-off point? The evidence is largely contradictory. Tests for the existence of the Critical Period
Hypothesis in second language acquisition have presented evidence that support and disprove its
existence and credibility. Long’s (1990) studies offer evidence that the acquisition of a native like
accent is not possible for learners who begin learning their L2 after the age of six and that it is
very difficult for L2 learners to achieve grammatical competence if they begin their studies at or
after puberty. Scovel’s (1988) evidence however, contradicts Long’s claims. Instead he argues
that evidence supporting the existence of the Critical Period Hypothesis is at best unclear and
ambiguous. A typical summary of the research claims that there is a distinction between long-
and short-term learning: children are better over a period of many years, adults over periods of up
to one year, with older learners displaying an initial advantage in their rate of acquisition (Ellis
1994: 35). Scores of evidence for and against the Critical Period Hypothesis exist and are
frequently used to support and rebuke its existence. These experiments have focused on the
various aspects of language development and if, and if so how, they are susceptible to a Critical
Period Hypothesis. These studies will now be examined in greater detail. The foundation for the
idea that a Critical Period Hypothesis exists in second language acquisition is that children learn
a second language more easily than adults as they are more biologically prepared (Bialystok &
Miller 1999:127). Research that focuses on behavioral evidence by measuring language
proficiency through ratings of oral speech and grammatical judgment has produced results where
the proficiency scores declined with increases in age of initial exposure to the language.

Conclusion:
Fossilization is an inevitable state in and has significant influence on second language
acquisition. It deserves our attention and research to solve fossilization problems in all aspects
of language. Only in this way can the level of English teaching and learning be improved.