User:Scallaerts/Fossilization (Second Language Acquisition)

Fossilization is the inability to progress in learning a second language in adulthood in spite of optimal learning conditions (steady exposure to input and continuous practice).

Different conceptions of Fossilization
Since the term was coined by Selinker (1972), fossilization has been investigated and studied under different names in the SLA literature, such as endstate, permanent optionality, and plateau. Moreover, there have been different conceptions and developments of fossilization, including developments by Selinker himself. This led eventually to a lack of uniformity in understanding the notion and caused some methodological difficulties on how to apply the notion in empirical studies.

In his earlier conceptions, Selinker was investigating what he called Interlanguage, which is a linguistics system the L2 learner acquires in the process of the ultimate attainment of the L2. It was proposed that the interlanguage system has three principles: 1- Overgeneralization of the L2 patterns being learned 2- transfer from features and patterns of L1 to L2 3- Fossilization, where the learner becomes unable to make progress in L2 development. Fossilization was conceived to be limited to the linguistic items, rules and sub-system, and it was characterized by ‘back-sliding’, in which the learner goes back to a stable state, despite the brief changes that might be produced. Selinker estimated that only 5% of L2 learners would reach ‘ultimate attainment’ in all discourse domains.

However, later on, the scope of the notion was broadened, where it was extended to include all domains of language. In Selinker and Lakshmanan (1992), there is a distinction made based on the duration of fossilization (short term and long term), and the notion was defined on the persistence of structures not in L2, where fossilization would be the long-term persistence of these structures

In Selinker 1996 (two perspectives paper), fossilization was conceptualized as an inevitable stage where the L2 learner simply creates a cessation of interlanguage learning. In this view, L2 learners cannot attain a native-like competence in all discourse domains.

History
The term fossilization was first coined by Selinker in 1972. Since its beginning, it was defined as a failure. Fossilization has since been conceptualized and reconceptualized.

Fossilization has been referred to by many linguists as; backsliding, stabilized errors, non-target like performance, typical errors, ingrained errors, systematic use of erroneous forms, variable outcomes, cessation of learning, structural persistence, errors that are impervious to negative evidence, long lasting free variation, persistent difficulty, ultimate attainment and plateau effect in learning.


 * Historically, research on fossilization has largely been descriptive, with its main thrust documenting stabilization of interlanguage forms in individual learners in case studies
 * Historically, the diagnostics of fossilization have been pegged to the native standard, and indeed the theoretical linchpin of the construct of fossilization is non-nativeness. (Birdsong, 2003: 3)
 * Transfer and fossilization are often misinterpreted to be the same thing
 * Fossilization has been conceptualized and reconceptualized
 * (Selinker and Lakshman, 1992) Permanent fossilization and temporary fossilization
 * Shorter period of time vs longer period of time
 * L2 learners tend to “new linguistic input”
 * Fossilization is a cognitive process (Han 1998)
 * Permanent fossilization cannot be overcome
 * that older (instructed) learners have an initial developmental edge over younger (uninstructed) learners; that older learners do as well as younger learners vis-à-vis certain aspects of morphosyntactic acquisition; and that instruction eliminates learner errors, thereby improving accuracy and averting fossilization (Han, ZhaoHong. (2012). Fossilization. 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0436.)

Stabilization and Fossilization
Stabilization and fossilization are distinct but related terms. Stabilization is understood as a natural interlanguage development and terminal stage of acquiring a second language where some interlanguage features are stabilized temporarily. In this view, stabilization is a progress of L2 learning, and not a cessation of it. This is analougus to the U-shaped learning curve in L1 acquisition where the child overgeneralizes rules (e.g., ‘goed’) and stabilizes in that stage for a while before acquiring the correct form (e.g., went) .

Furthermore, if the stabilization prolonged and the interlanguage forms are unchanged for a long period of time, then stabilization would be considered as a precursor to fossilization and part of its process. However, for this reason, some consider stabilization synonymous with fossilization.

Types of Approaches
Methodologically, there are five approaches with which fossilization is usually studied. These approaches are called: 1. Longitudinal, 2. Corrective feedback, 3. Advanced learner, 4. Length of residence, and 5. Typical error.

The longitudinal approach
This focuses on specific mistakes that persist over long periods of time. An example of this is a study conducted with a woman whom the report called “Aino” whose first language was finnish. Over five years some of the mistakes that persisted and were thus declared “fossilized” were tense and aspect, and countability. A continual problem with longitudinal approaches is determining just how long these studies should be conducted for. A length of 5 years has been suggested, but the rate of acquisition for learners is not always the same. One learner may acquire certain things faster than another. This phenomenon is amplified when second language learners have different first languages.

Corrective feedback approach
This focuses on identifying if a learner can move past errors with the proper corrective feedback. It should be noted that this approach has been criticized because it shifts blame onto the learners and does not look at the feedback itself as potentially being the issue.

The advanced learner approach
This approach makes use of more advanced speakers to try and determine more specifically what errors have persisted even when the speaker moves closer to near-native like abilities. The flaws pointed out in this approach are that there is no evidence the speakers can get past these errors since they already did so with other errors. Furthermore, because of the lack of long term data it is not possible to know whether these errors are recent or really persistent as the approach assumes.

The length of residence approach looks at learners who reside in a second language environment. Recent studies look at when a learner arrives in the environment as a base to chart the learner’s progress in the second language. This study’s flaw lies in its extremely limited pool of subjects. Due to the fact that a subject needs to reside in the second language environment it rules out many other learners. A notable criticism is that the effectiveness of second language acquisition lies more in quality of interactions than the quantity.

The typical error approach
It uses, as the name suggests, a typical error as evidence for fossilization. It compares learners of all levels and checks for a common error which is marked typical. This approach has faced criticism in that it paints too broad of a picture. While it does reveal errors persisting the approach does nothing to explain exactly what is going on that is causing the errors.

General criticism
The fossilization hypothesis has been marked with several supports and criticisms over the years. First of all, fossilization has been said to be too vague of a term. The category for it is too broad and thus it cannot be used to define fluency or errors. Additionally, there is the question of whether fossilization is even relevant to the so- called mastering of a second language. It is difficult to define what success in a second language looks like and what impact fossilization has on this. Furthermore, research on fossilization was conducted in a divisive sense. After the proposal that there are five central systems in which fossilization occurs, researchers looked at these systems individually rather than as a whole. Finally, another criticism of the fossilization hypothesis is that studies have pointed to fossilization being a localized phenomenon. The original hypothesis said there was such a thing as global fossilization. However, through years of research there has been no evidence of an entire second language reaching a state of fossilization.

Fossilization in Second Language Teaching
There is a general consensus that fossilization indicates it is nearly impossible to successfully master another language after adolescence. (Han & Odlin, 2006) However, researchers have noted that some people can reach a level of fluency equal to or even beyond that of a native speaker. Several studies have pointed to formal instruction in a second language leading to reductions in fossilization. This applies to learners of all ages, and the effectiveness may be tied to the method of instruction. Other research has noted that a focused explicit instruction of a particular form can improve acquisition and help prevent fossilization. However, ZhaoHong Han (2004) reports in their book that there is an overall agreement that instructing a learner in grammar alone is not an effective method to reach native-like abilities and prevent as much fossilization as possible. In other words, learners need to be taught some grammar in an explicit way, but the majority of instruction should be in other forms.