Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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,
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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:
4
S: Yes, I do.
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
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
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
REFERENCES
Corder, S.P. (1983) A role for the mother tongue. In S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds) Language
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
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
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.
VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form in
7
8