Fossilization is commonly described in SLA literature as a “phenomenon of non-progression of learning despite continuous exposure to input, adequate motivation to learn, and sufficient opportunity for practice” (Han 13). The Question behind this notion is: Are adults able to ever acquire native-like competence in an L2? And if some learners are, what does this mean with respect to a majority of learners who seem not to be (cf. Han 13)? This bifurcation of possible outcomes in learning a second language is mirrored in the large variety of terms used to describe the concept of ‘fossilization’. Among others, it is described “as ‘virtual halt’, ‘linguistic monstrosities’, ‘plateau’, ‘rigor mortis’, ‘stopping short’, ‘fossilized variation’, ‘permanent optionality’, ‘siesta’ [and] ‘endstate’”(Han 13 - 14). Such a range of labels reveals differing conceptual ideas about the topic’s nature concerning its powers of spread within the learner’s interlanguage, its finitude, reoccurring continuation and inevitableness. The terms ‘linguistic monstrosities’ and ‘fossilized variation’ rather hint at only parts of the interlanguage being affected by fossilization as opposed to the notion of a completely ‘fossilized interlanguage’. The term ‘virtual halt’ supports this idea that while some aspects seem to be fossilized others might continue to develop. Whereas the terms ‘rigor mortis’ and ‘endstate’ convey an understanding of fossilization’s lethal and final everlastingness prohibiting any further linguistic development whatsoever, the terms ‘siesta’, ‘plateau’ and ‘permanent optionality’ ,on the other hand, consider the concept to be negotiable in some sense holding an option of resuming linguistic development.
In this paper I will very briefly outline some of the major stopping points in the more than three-decade evolution of the concept ‘fossilization’ and illustrate key conceptional issues. Relating to these difficulties I will look at recent voices who express the need for more comprehensive empirical research and rethinking of hitherto approaches and convictions. In doing so, the focus will also be on fossilization in relation to second language instruction.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Evolution of the Concept ‘Fossilization’ and Key Conceptional Issues Surrounding It
2.1 Definitions by Selinker
2.2 What Do Others Think?
2.3 Key Issues and an Alternative Definition by Han (2004)
2.3.1 Global or Local Fossilization?
2.3.2 Fossilization as Product or Process?
2.3.3 Empirical Research
2.3.4 Definition by Han
3. Fossilization and Second Language Instruction
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the theoretical evolution of the concept of "fossilization" within Second Language Acquisition (SLA) literature. It investigates the shift from early definitions focusing on cognitive mechanisms to more contemporary debates regarding the product-versus-process nature of interlanguage stabilization, while highlighting the implications for pedagogical practices.
- Historical development of the fossilization concept
- Cognitive vs. performance-related interpretations
- Global vs. local manifestations of linguistic stagnation
- Methodological challenges in empirical research
- The relationship between corrective feedback and fossilization
Excerpt from the Book
2.1. Definitions by Selinker
Selinker introduced the term ‘fossilization’ to the field of SLA in 1972. This early understanding of the concept presents it as one consisting of both a “cognitive mechanism” as well as a “performance-related structural notion” (Han 14). The former is pictured as being a “constituent of a latent psychological structure” and in charge of the whole process of second language acquisition including its fossilization (Han 14). It is thought to underlie the latter, which is the observable language production of a second language learner who tends to keep reproducing non-native like linguistic features which were thought to be removed from his/her performance (cf. Han 14). Selinker’s concept, therefore, understands both parts to be interrelated.
Looking at fossilization from the performance-related structural view, the concept is build up in an indirect way when basing it on “putative fossilizable structures” (Han 14), that is linguistic items, subsystems and rules, observed from a learner’s backsliding to them (cf. Han 14). Selinker draws from this the suggestion that “fossilizable structures are persistent [and] resistant to external influences” as well as that “fossilization affects both child and adult L2 learners alike” (Han 15) thereby denying L2 learners the ability to achieve a native-like language level (cf. Han 15). Especially this concluding notion with its fundamental importance for any L2 learner attracted the attention of second language researchers. From then on, the concept of ‘fossilization’ experienced “a gradual abstraction and an expansion in scope” (Han 15).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Provides an overview of the "fossilization" terminology in SLA and outlines the paper's goal to trace its conceptual evolution.
2. Evolution of the Concept ‘Fossilization’ and Key Conceptional Issues Surrounding It: Details the chronological development of the term, starting from Selinker's seminal work to modern interpretations and debates.
3. Fossilization and Second Language Instruction: Analyzes the pedagogical concern that fossilization might hinder learning and discusses the debated efficacy of corrective feedback.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, suggesting that fossilization should be approached through enhanced hypothesis testing rather than as an unproven fixed phenomenon.
Keywords
Fossilization, Second Language Acquisition, SLA, Interlanguage, Cognitive Mechanism, Performance-related, Native-like competence, Backsliding, Corrective feedback, Empirical research, Dynamic systems approach, Linguistic stagnation, Target language, Language learning, Pedagogical implications.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper deals with the concept of "fossilization" in Second Language Acquisition, specifically how it has been defined, interpreted, and debated by researchers over the last three decades.
What are the central themes discussed?
Key themes include the distinction between cognitive and performance-based views, the controversy over local versus global fossilization, and the role of instruction in preventing language stabilization.
What is the primary objective of the work?
The objective is to outline the historical evolution of the concept, identify major conceptual difficulties, and argue for a need to rethink existing approaches through more rigorous empirical research.
Which scientific approach is primarily analyzed?
The paper reviews historical and contemporary SLA literature, contrasting phenomenological product-oriented views with dynamic cognitive-process views of language acquisition.
What does the main body cover?
It covers the initial definitions by Selinker, critical perspectives from other researchers, the shift toward "dynamic systems," and the practical application of these theories in language teaching.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as Fossilization, Interlanguage, Cognitive Mechanism, Second Language Acquisition, and Corrective Feedback.
How does the author view the "product" vs. "process" debate?
The author highlights that while the "product" view faces empirical proof difficulties, the "process" view offers a more flexible, albeit complex, way to study the tendency toward the cessation of development.
What is the author's conclusion regarding corrective feedback?
The author concludes that while teachers often see error correction as an "ultimate defence" against fossilization, evidence suggests it is less powerful than assumed and must be applied carefully to avoid unintended negative effects.
- Citation du texte
- Annika Onken (Auteur), 2010, Evolution of and Approaches to the Concept of 'Fossilization', Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/187862
