Fossilization

1. Notion of Fossilization
Selinker first put forwarded the notion of fossilization in the paper
Interlanuage (IL) in 1972. He noted that 95% of Second Language (L2) learners
failed to reach the same level of First language (L1) competence from his
observation. This kind of phenomenon is defined by Selinder (1972) as
fossilization. Fossilization, a mechanism…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 Target
Language (TL).

Selinker and Lamendella (1978) redefined fossilization as a permanent

cessation 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.

Concepts about fossilization

(1) It may appear at different language levels;
(2) It may occur at different learning stages among age groups;
(3) It may be either structure fossilization or competence fossilization;
(4) It is usually manifested as the deviant forms from the TL norms;
1
 (5) There are soft and hard degrees of fossilization.

2. Classification of Fossilization
2.1 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, and

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 a new dialect. Indian
English and Singapore English are good cases in point.
2.2 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 plateaus, “where development of given
TL features is simply ‘arrested’ or ‘inhibited’ for shorter or longer periods of time.
(Sims, 1989) It has become one of the heated topics in the current fossilization
studies.
2
 Permanent fossilization often occurs among the adult learners who have no
intention to improve their target language, and most commonly in pronunciation
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.

2.3 Phonological fossilization

The difference of phonology is possibly the greatest difference between

languages. Phonological fossilization refers to the repetition of phonological
errors which result from the incorrect acquisition of pronunciation of L2, usually
affected by L1. In English, there are certain pronunciations such as [p] which does
not exist in Arabic. Therefore, it is difficult for Arab English learners to
pronounce this consonant [p] correctly. It is often heard that Arab students say
[ben] instead of “[pen]. When such phonological errors are repeatedly made and
eventually stay stable in the incorrect manner, phonological fossilization occurs.

2.4 Morphological fossilization

English has got a variety of changes in morphology and therefore has various
grammatical morphemes. For example, 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. Since such linguistic phenomenon does not exist in Arabic, it often
leads Arabic students to forget the transformation or to misuse the form.

3.3 Syntactic fossilization

Different languages have their own syntactic rules. The most typical
manifestation of syntactic fossilization among Arab students is presented in
tenses. Arabic does not have various tenses, whereas English has presented tense
and past tense in general that can be further divided into sixteen categories. It

3
often takes time for Arab 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.

3.4 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. Owl is the symbol of wisdom in the western
culture but the symbol of the bad omen among Arabs.

3.5 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.

3. Causal Factors of Fossilization

Selinker contends that “the most interesting phenomena in IL performance are
those items, rules and sub-systems which are fossilizable in terms of the five
processes: Language transfer, transfer of training, strategies of second language
learning, strategies of second language communication, and overgeneralization of
TL linguistic material.” (Ellis, 1999: 351) He also states that combinations of the
five processes produce entirely fossilized IL competence.

4
 3.1 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 second language acquisition.

3.2 Training transfer

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 develop IL or individual
languages with rules often wildly different from those of Standard English”. A similar
position was voiced by Valette who made a distinction between “street” learners and
school learners. She claimed that “fossilization often occurs among ‘street’ learners
who have had extensive opportunity to communicate successfully even though with
inaccurate lexical and syntactic patterns. As a result, their errors have become
systematized and are almost impossible to eradicate” (Valette, 1991). “Street” learners
are never corrected, nor do they correct themselves.

Valette’s conclusions are shared by Higgs and Clifford’s position. These

researchers remarked that learners at Government language schools are “hopelessly
stranded on various sorts of developmental plateau” (Sims, 1989). Higgs and Clifford
called those learners “terminal cases.” They explained that “these learners have been
affected by prior language experience of some informal nature…such as street learning
in the target culture, which then inhibits their progress in formal classroom instruction”
(Sims, 1989, 65).
5
3.3 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.

According to Sims, 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. Finally, Sims concluded that 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” (Sims, 1989).

3.4 Communication strategy

In real communication, learners may turn to communication strategy, a systematic

skill that a speaker resorts to while having difficulties in expression to keep the
communication going on. Unfortunately, sometimes such “successful use of
communication strategies will prevent acquisition”, Ellis (2002) said, for the
learner may become so “skillful” in making up for lack of linguistic knowledge by
6
 the use of various communication strategies such as avoidance or paraphrase.

Also, the learner inclines to simplify the target language, especially to simplify
the grammatical rules, for instance, the use of the articles, plural forms and the use
of tenses. And this reflects the unsatisfactory effect of communicative teaching
methods. If the learner pays too much attention to the fluency but neglects the
accuracy, some language errors can be easily fossilized. If the learner only
stresses the cultivation of communicative competence but neglects the language
competence, his/her language competence can also be easily fossilized

3.5 Overgeneralization

Overgeneralization (Ellis, 2000) 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

7
1