FOSSILIZATION

In this piece of ours, we will reflect on a term which has been discussed amongst scholars

and which has been a central issue in the context of Second Language Acquisition (SLA).

Fossilization, as is pointed out, in this respect, by many SLA researchers is a phenomenon dealing

with how L2 learners acquire the target language in parallel with a number of variables – mainly the

environment surrounding them or the atmosphere they happen to be in. Specifically speaking,

fossilisation, according to Selinker (1972), is a mechanism which underlies surface linguistic

material that speakers will tend to keep in their Interlanguage (IL) productive performance, no

matter what the age of the learner or the amount of instruction he receives in the target language. In

other words, as is mentioned by Lowther (1983), ‘’fossilization, as presented in much of the

literature, is understood to be the inability of a person to attain native-like ability in the target

language’’ (p.127). Simply put, all these never-ending discussions and research into the issue

revealed that fossilisation is a concept of being unable, in that sense, to attain native-like

competence in an L2 despite continuous exposure to input, motivation to learn, and adequate

opportunity for practice.

To have a better understanding of what fossilisation actually is, it would be wise to state that

there are numerous behavioural reflexes and linguistic features associated with the term itself. Yet

again, some of these aforementioned reflexes and linguistic features are based on empirical studies

while some of them are based more on speculations, which might as well mean that there are

various factors contributing to fossilisation, namely; environmental, cognitive, neurobiological and

socio-affective (Han, 2004, p. 28). To illustrate as an environmental factor that contributes to

fossilization can be that of absence of corrective feedback. It is a very well-known fact that there are

different dimensions of feedback, two of which are cognitive and corrective feedback. The former

type of feedback deals more with messages about facts, beliefs etc. with the help of linguistic

devices such as words and phrases, whereas, corrective feedback tends to be based on paralinguistic

devices such as facial expressions and tone of voice and when it comes down to acquiring an L2

1
properly, or in this sense, with a native-like competence, it is, we think, of great importance to have

L2 learners familiarize in more depth with how native speakers of a particular language speak the

language rather than giving some explicit feedback on, for instance, some grammatical mistakes as

the latter type of feedback would, to a certain extent of course, help them achieve their goal of

having native-like competency. Moreover, another factor of fossilization which might be

categorized as an internally contributing factor and also a cognitive one, as is mentioned by

Schachter (1996b, p. 163), is lack of access to Universal Grammar (UG). Specifically speaking,

what is meant by lack of access to UG is that an adult L2 learner who happens not have had the

required access to UG so as to better themself to acquire the target language results in fossilization

as the grammatical structures of these adult learners will be incomplete with which we completely

agree because if an L2 learner has this awareness, they will probably end up being better speakers

of the target language that they aim to acquire. Another putative factor that contributes to

fossilization in SLA is what is referred to as neural entrenchment which indicates that learning

takes place as a result of ‘’neural associations in response to environmental stimuli(i.e., input)’’

(Han, 2004, p. 31). However, in the case of an adult learner trying to learn an L2, it is rather

difficult for them to connect all the dots and the impact of their L1 on L2 makes it even harder to

acquire the target language in a thorough manner as they are inclined to build on their existing L1

knowledge and this inevitably results in the fact that they become resistant to the prior language

acquisition procedure and ends up failing reconstructing in L2 and as a result, fossilization occurs.

In an attempt to make things even clearer, we would like to go on and talk about a socio-affective

factor that makes L2 learners end up being ‘fossilized’, which is known as satisfaction of

communicative needs. Many researchers have considered ‘satisfaction of communicate needs’ as an

inseparable part of fossilization within the context of SLA. According to Johnson (1996) the

concept of stopping or, in other words, when needs are met persists in fossilization studies. Corder

(1983) argued that communicative needs are immediate motivation for inter language (IL)

development, suggesting that IL grammar might get fossilized when these so-called needs are

2
satisfied. In our humble opinion, these two researchers( out of many observations made by a larger

number of researchers in different teaching & learning settings) are both right given that when an

adult L2 learner can satisfy their basic communicative needs, they will get fossilized and stop short

in continuing to acquire the target language. With all that having been discussed thus far in our

minds, we strongly believe that being aware of what behavioural reflexes and linguistics features

are associated with fossilization will help us have a better insight on the issue.

As for the factors causes cessation of L2 learning, there are again numerous factors

contributing to it. First off, one of many factors causing cessation is a variable known as Age of

Arrival (AoA). This concept argues that what is more important when it comes down to L2

acquisition is that age plays an important role. AoA simply measure the age of arrival to a new

country to be exposed to the target language rather than taking the length of residence into account,

therefore; the age at which a person arrives in a new atmosphere to learn the target language affects

their achievement of having native-like proficiency. Han (2009) in his study mentioned that ‘’we

create a level playing field for the equal consideration of neurological, psychological, physiological,

and sociological determinants of localized fossilization.’’ (p. 4) which, we think, is in direct relation

with what we have discussed above. Another factor contributing to cessation of L2 learning would

have to be that of L1 transfer. 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 cessation of L2 learning as, in our opinion, learners might get demotivated and fossilized

accordingly. 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. 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, thus; causing cessation of SLA. In a nutshell, that the number of factors which

contribute to L2 learning cessation is massive means that fossilization in the context of SLA occurs

3
when L2 learners happen to get either demotivated by some environmental, psychological and

biological factors or fossilized due to all these aforementioned variables.

The aforementioned comments on fossilization urge us to consider how impactful classroom

language can be to promote or to impede fossilization. Ellis (1999) proposes that instruction will

accelerate learning process through developmental stages, thus being likely to inhibit fossilization.

We also are in favor of this postulation with regard to our experience. As practitioners we design

the lessons with a specific foci on content and form. We here aim to prevent the risk of flawed

learning either of structure or pronunciation. In parallel with this practice VanPatten (1988) and

Ellis (1999) claim that formal instruction impedes fossilization. To exemplify, in a particular

grammar-based lesson it is always recommendable to allocate a certain part of lesson on the form

and pronunciation of the language (e.g. present perfect tense) through a detailed language analysis

with its positive, negative, interrogative, short question and answer, contracted and wh- question

forms. The equal focus should be given to the pronunciation of the language as well through a

variety of drilling techniques so as to prevent faulty or incomplete learning.

The aforementioned comments drive us to think of the quality of language that students are

exposed to. It goes without saying that the quality of formal instruction depends on the quality of

the teachers who serve as the model speaker and instructor of the target language. In this matter

fossilization will be inevitable. In relevance to this particular point Gass and Selinker (2001) claim

that inappropriate learning are likely to happen if the input is impoverished because of the specific

focus on the language. Teacher, peer or textbook potentially brings about this (Larsen-Freeman,

1995). We therefore suggest that teachers (native or non-native) choose the correct textbooks, check

the peer interaction and prepare the lesson with a meticulous analysis of the structure with its syntax

and morphology or pronunciation with its intonation and stress to minimize errors, thereby

minimizing fossilization. Giving a common example from the ELT classroom in our settings,

teachers tend to expect long answers from yes/no questions as indicated below:

T: Do you like playing football?

4
S: Yes, I do.

T: No, say *“Yes, I like playing football”

Sadly enough English language instructors do such mistakes in spite of harboring good

intentions (i.e. to get students to make up full sentences). Therefore, explicit instruction will be

invaluable to prevent fossilizations, which can also be a source of fossilization.

L1 interference in second language acquisition or fossilization has been a major area of

study for decades. The idea of it dates back to late 1960s when behaviorism was prevailing in SLA

field. This hypothesis explains incorrect second language learning through the intervention of the

linguistic sub-systems of L1 and argues that contrastive analysis of both languages prevent

fossilization. We also think in favor of this hypothesis in the context of fossilization, for every

second language learner develops a dual linguistic knowledge system, which is called interlanguage

(IL). Therefore, it becomes necessary to set the rules of second language over another through a

contractive analysis. If this is overlooked, fossilization is likely to occur in in the production of the

second language. In Turkish setting errors with regard to L1 effect commonly occur in the

following areas:

- Adapting to SVO syntax, which is reverse in Turkish. Students are inclined to omit subject

pronoun in their early sentences. For example, ‘playing football?’ ‘watch TV everyday’

- Pronouncing some certain words that are nonexistent in Turkish, e.g, th- as in thanks, three

etc.

- Replacing the Present Perfect Tense with Simple Past Tense, for PPT does not have its

representation in L1.

The second language learners will be prone to making such errors unless a contrastive

analysis is made or they get exposed to a sufficient amount of quality input before the critical

period. Even though adults acquire an enormous amount of input, fossilization risk will remain

active after the critical period.

5
 Based on a review of literature on fossilization an emphasis on adult fossilization, causes of

fossilization, the role of L1 and the other common topics abound in a myriad of descriptive studies.

We consequently anticipate that this specific topic will be analyzed through empirical studies

centralized in association with sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics with external and internal

factors influencing or inciting this process. To get further data neurological analyses could also be

investigated in correlation with fossilization by a central focus on how brain acts during

fossilization.

The other deficiency we have encountered with is the short amount of studies on child

fossilization. So, having empirical data on this area will be rewarding, as it will be possible to

compare child fossilization with adult fossilization on experimental bases.

REFERENCES

Corder, S.P. (1983) A role for the mother tongue. In S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds) Language

transfer in language learning. (p. 85–97). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


6
Ellis, R. (1999). The study of second language acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language

Education Press.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Publishers.

Han, Z. (2004) Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

Matters Ltd.

Johnson, J., Shenkman, K., Newport, E. and Medin, D. (1996) Indeterminacy in the grammar of

adult language learners. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 335–52.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the

myths. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham and R. Reber (eds). Second

Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy (pp. 131–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lowther, M. (1983) Fossilization, pidginization and the Monitor. In L. Mac- Mathuna and D.

Singleton (eds) Language Across Cultures (pp. 127–39). Dublin: Irish Association for Applied

Linguistics.

Mathuna and D. Singleton (eds) Language Across Cultures (pp. 127–39). Dublin: Irish

Association for Applied Linguistics.

Schachter, J. (1996b) Learning and triggering in adult L2 acquisition. In G. Brown et al. (eds)

Performance and Competence in SLA (pp. 70–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. IRAL 10 (2), 209–31.

VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form in

teaching. Language Learning, 38, 243-60.

7
8