Mary Enwemaya CILR 601

Fall 2018

Introduction

The majority of individuals, estimated at ninety-five percent 1, who set out to

acquire a second language fail to achieve their aim of native-speaker proficiency due

to an inability to permanently correct persistent errors despite “continuous exposure

to input, adequate motivation to learn, and sufficient opportunity for practice” (Han,

13), is referred to as fossilization. The term fossilization was introduced by Selinker

in 1972 based on his “observation that the vast majority of second language learners

fail to achieve native-speaker competence.” In this research paper, I hope to

understand the role of fossilization in Second Language Acquisition. In order to do so it

is necessary to examine the history of second language acquisition (SLA) by briefly

discussing two perspectives: psycholinguistic and behaviorist. Next, an analysis of

fossilization will begin with an overview of Terence Odlin’s concept of language

transfer as a prelude to in the development of interlanguage. Odlin describes

language transfer as the influence of a previously learned language (L1) on the

acquisition of a second/target language; which can facilitate or inhibit the acquisition

of the target language. In analyzing fossilization using texts from Selinker and Han;

this paper will then conclude with two interview summaries from current and second

language learners.

II. Brief History of SLA: From a Psycholinguistic and Behaviorist perspective

There are many perspectives on how second languages are learned. Though

these theories stem from a variety of perspectives, such as neurolinguistic,

1 According to Larry Selinker and his theory of fossilization.

Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

behaviorist, linguistic, etc., a brief history of second language acquisition will be

discussed from a psycholinguistic and behaviorist perspective.

Second language acquisition is the process by which individuals’ learn a

second language, or target language, in order to assimilate and communicate with

individuals who speak that particular target language. Early concepts of SLA were

proposed in the 1950s from the behaviorist view. The behaviorist theory suggests that

external stimuli can elicit an internal response which in turn can elicit an internal

stimuli that lead to external responses. “According to the law of exercise, language

learning is promoted when the learner makes active and repeated responses to stimuli.

The law of effect emphasizes the importance of reinforcing the learners’ responses

and correcting non-target-like ones. The principle of shaping claims that learning will

proceed most smoothly and rapidly if complex behaviors are broken down into their

component parts and learned bit-by-bit” (Garza). The underlining principle, as

proposed by Watson (1924) and Skinner (1957) was that language learning was the

product of ‘a habit consisting of an automatic response elicited by a given stimulus.”

The notion of an impediment in acquiring a second language, stemmed from their L1,

in which their old habits had to be unlearned for successful acquisition of the L2. The

impediment or difficulty, was dependent on the extent to which the target language

was similar to or different from the L1 or contrastive analysis, posited by Lado in his

1957 book Linguistics Across Cultures.

Psycholinguists, such as Chomsky “examine the system of language the

learner is developing” ( Freeman, 71). According to the school of psycholinguistics,

learners acquire a second language similar to the same way they acquire a first
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

language. This mechanism is due to an inbuilt faculty for language acquisition or an

innateness we have for acquisition. Chomsky proposed his theory of Universal

Grammar, which held that people are born with “innate linguistic principles which

comprised the ‘initial state’ and which controlled the form which the sentences of any

given language could take” (Ellis,43). Seliger (Freeman, 72) identifies three major

questions psycholinguists ask about SLA:

1. How does the learner develop his or her second language system? What are thought
to be the processes involved?

2. What role does previous knowledge such as the first language, play in the second
language acquisition?

3. What psychological characteristics contribute to successful language acquisition? Are

there good learners and bad learners?

III. Language Transfer: The Romans and the Gauls

In the 1950s, Robert Lado claimed that individuals tend to transfer forms and

meanings of their L1 and culture to their L2. Once termed interference, Weinreich

held that transfer “[transfer is evidenced as] those instances of deviation from the

norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their

familiarity with more than one language” (1). Where the two languages were

identical, learning could take place through positive transfer. In particular, if both

languages had a common ancestry:

“[t]he beliefs of Muller and others about the uniqueness of

grammar were usually related to the assumptions about the
tree model of language change in which languages are
viewed as parts of a “family tree”. In that model, Latin,
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

for example, is characterized as the “parent” language

and French, Rumanian, and other Romance tongues as
the “daughter” languages.” (Odlin, 8)

Comparison of Four Romance Language to Latin and English

Latin Spanish Italian French Portuguese English
Dicto dicho detto dit dito Said
Lacte leche latte lait leite Milk
Lecto lecho letto lit leito Bed
nocte noche notte nuit noite night

Where the two languages were different, learning difficulty arose and errors

occurred resulting from negative transfer. This in turn relates to the behaviorist view

of language acquisition through repetition in order to minimize the difference in the

degree of contrastive analysis. In 55 B.C., Julius Caesar invaded Gaul, modern-day

France. There were many inhabitants of that region, such as the Greeks, German,

Celts, etc, before the Gauls invaded and took over. Fear of the Gauls motivated the

Celts to beg the help of the Romans to defeat the Gauls in exchange for loyalty 2. The

Romans were successful in their endeavor because the Gauls were a people of

loosely-connected tribes. For their success in the Gallic Wars, the Romans annexed

Gaul as part of the Roman Empire and the Latinization of Gaul, also known as

Provençal under the Roman Empire commenced. The Gauls that once held

government positions, had to learn Latin in order to keep hold of their positions.

Vulgar Latin could be found in various areas in the newly acquired territory, it was

2 Rickard, Peter. A History of French Language. Second Edition. London: Routledge, 1993.
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

slowly incorporated. In the country and with the elderly, Vulgar Latin was hardly

spoken, however, it underwent further modification by the subjugated peoples, who

brought to it their own speech habits and pronunciation influenced by their own

indigenous languages. The Gauls often borrowed terms from the Romans, thereby

incorporating it into their language because it did not exist. The Romans did little to

change the Gallic language. In general, a vowel was put at the end of a word to

signify whether it was masculine or feminine (Rickard, 15). During the third century,

all of Gaul was speaking Latin, at this point in time was when Vulgar Latin became

the national language (NL). The collapse of the Roman Empire occurred during the

fifth century through the warring hands of the Germans. As a result, Rome was cut off

from its provinces and as each region drifted apart, each modified its form of spoken

Latin in unique ways. Where Latin was once the spoken language, now emerged the

Romance Languages. The evolution of the Roman Languages is a confirmation of the

tree model mentioned earlier. As Gaul was lost to the Romans, the Germanic tribes

under the Franks, ‘conquered’ and unified Gaul. The language contact resulted in

language mixing and borrowing. For example, the Gauls borrowed “jardin” (garden)

and “choisir” (to choose). The contact with these various cultures inevitable lead to

the exchange, borrowing and incorporation of words and sentences within each

language.

IV. Selinker’s Interlanguage: Does Language transfer (LT) facilitate

Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

Interlanguage (IL)?

Though the term interlanguage was coined by Selinker, it was Corder (1967)

who suggested that there was a language structure developed by learners acquiring an

L2. Corder also claimed that “the appearance of error in a learner’s production was

evidence that the learner was organizing the knowledge available to them at a

particular moment in time”; this mechanism is a ‘built-in-syllabus’ similar to

Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. In his 1972 paper, Selinker wrote that the L2

utterances of the ideal learners differ from that of the native-speaker, then “[o]ne

would be completely justified in hypothesizing, perhaps even compelled to

hypothesize, the existence of a separate linguistic system based on the observable

output which results from a learner’s attempted production of a target language norm.

This lingusitc system we will call ‘interlanguage’” (1972). Cognitive theories of

interlanguage claim that with the assistance of learning strategies, learners build

mental grammars of the L2, utilize rules they have constructed to interpret and

produce utterances. The errors are found not in their own grammars, but rather with

reference to the target language (TL) (Gass, 172). When an L2 learner is attempting to

acquire a target language, the language contact, if there is a substantial difference in

the contrastive analysis of the two languages, will facilitate the creation or emergence

of interlanguage. L2 learners use language transfer as a fall back on their native

language as a necessary process in the beginning stages of acquisition. Once

confident in their acquisition process, interlanguage emerges as a mechanism that

unites both the native and target language. In the development of this system, the L2
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

learner progresses at a relative rate in acquiring the target language. Selinker (1972)

considers language transfer to be one of the five processes 3 central to language

learning and one of the principal causes of fossilization. Gass also considers language

transfer, which she defines as the superposition of native language patterns (both form

and function) onto L2 patterns, to be a necessary second language learning. Selinker

cautions that the existence of transfer cannot be established unless frequency analysis

reveals that a “statistically significant trend in the speaker’s native language

appears….and is then paralleled by a significant trend toward the same alternative in

the speaker’s interlanguage behavior” (Selinker, 50).

V. The Role of Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition

Fossilization is a phenomena which occurs despite continuous exposure to

target language input, sufficient motivation to improve, and ample opportunity to

practice. Fossilization “underlies surface linguistic material which speakers will tend

to keep in their IL productive performance, no matter what age of the learner or the

amount of instruction the learner receives in the TL…localizable linguistic

phenomena are linguistic items, rules and subsystems which speakers….tend t keep in

their IL relative to a particular TL” (Han, 13). An L2 leaner may have everything in

his favor, but because of the innate nature of fossilization, their success in becoming a

native speaker is slim. As a learner progresses from language transfer to

interlanguage, at a certain point in the interlanguage process, the L2 learner cannot

3 Selinker’s five processes are: (1) language transfer, (2) transfer of training, (3) strategies of second
language learning, (4) strategies of second language communication, and (5) Overgeneralization of TL in
linguistic material.
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

learn anymore and they fail to achieve full-native like competence.

Two main contributing factors that leave learners predisposed to fossilization

are the Crtical Period [Hypothesis] and native language transfer. Selinker writes that

“the most interesting phenomena in interlanguage (IL) performance are those items,

rules and sub-systems which are fossilizable” (1972) in terms of the five process

below:

1. Language transfer

2. Transfer training

3. Strategies of second language learning

4. Strategies of second language communication

5. Overgeneralization of target language (TL) linguistic material

He hypothesizes that not only are the five processes central to second language

learning, but that each process creates fossilized items in learners’ interlanguage

(Tanaka, 2). Selinker notes that combinations of the five process produce ‘entirely

fossilized interlanguage competence’. He cites Coulter, “who presents examples of

language transfer together with a strategy of communication which helps to convince

learners they know enough of the target language to be able to communicate

effectively and they therefore stop learning” (Tanaka, 3).

On the one hand, the Critical Period Hypothesis, according to Lennerberg

holds that:

“Most individuals of average intelligence are able to learn a second

language after the beginning of their second decade, although the

incidence of ‘language-learning-blocks’ rapidly increases after puberty.
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

Also, automatic acquisition from mere exposure to a given language

seems to disappear after this age, and foreign languages have to be
taught and learned through a conscious and labored effort.
Foreign accents cannot be overcome easily after puberty.
However, a person can learn to communicate in a foreign
language at the age of forty. This does not trouble our basic
hypothesis on age limitations because we may assume that the
cerebral organization for language learning as such has taken place
during childhood, and since natural languages tend to resemble
one another in many fundamental aspects … , the matrix of
language skills is present” (p. 176).

In essence, though it is difficult for adults to acquire a second language, it is not

impossible. However, Lenneberg believed that the “language acquisition device, like

other biological functions, works successfully only when it is stimulated at the right

time” (p. 19). As opposed to Lightbown and Spada (2003) who claim:

“…as in first language acquisition, there is a critical period for

Second language acquisition…[T]he Critical Period Hypothesis
suggests the brain is predisposed for success in language
learning. Developmental changes in the brain, it is argued, affect
the nature of language acquisition. According to this view, language
learning which occurs before the end of the critical period may
not be based on the innate biological structures believed to contribute
to first language acquisition in early childhood. Rather, older learners
depend on more general learning abilities…[i]t is argued that these general
learning abilities are not as successful for language learning as the
more specific, innate capacities which are available to the young child” (61).

When put in place, the aggregate outcome of the native language and the concept of a

critical period in a learners’ acquisition of second language is an affirmation of

Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

Selinker and Han’s notion that fossilization as an inevitable innateness. From the

beginning of an L2 learner’s journey, the initial language contact that mandates the

use of language transfer to the formation of interlanguage, learner’s ultimately will

either consciously or unconsciously, “create a cessation of interlanguage learning,

thus stopping the interlanguage from developing, it is hypothesized, in a permanent

way” (Han, 15).

Language Transfer ‡ Interlanguage ‡ Fossilization

system an L2 learner when an L2 learner non-progression of

develops that is
neither L1 nor L2
but rather with its
own grammar, etc.
uses their L1 resources learning despite
to influence the continuous exposure
acquisition of the to input, adequate
TL as a fall back. motivation to learn
and sufficient
opportunity for
practice, irrespective
of age.

Selinker and Han have validated their assertion that fossilization in the end, is

the demise of an L2 learner’s ability to successfully acquire a second language. The

question then is, should instructors tell their students from the get go that “there will

be five percent of you that will be able to speak the (French, Spanish, etc) language

fluently, whereas the rest of the remaining ninety-five percent will think you have

learned enough to communicate properly”? This should be the disclaimer that should

be listed, though it maybe harsh, especially for college students.

As I reflect on my own experiences as an L2 learner and those of my students,

past and present, I cannot help but notice the many parallels that permeate between all

three of our experiences. My students and I were around the same age in which we
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

“knew” we were L2 learners. My experience in this has lead me to doubt Han and

Selinker’s ideas on fossilization. I have never spent sufficient time in a French

speaking country, giving me a full language immersion experience. However, I had

been highly motivated to learn French. My idea is that, in general individuals who

learn a language have a valid reason for doing so. Whether it is for pleasure,

confidence, to feed your ego, a job requirement, or to plainly communicate with

people, there is a motivation to drive you. If individuals immerse themselves in a

language, as if it were the only means of communication, why shouldn’t the five

percent increase to twenty percent? Otherwise, you could either not learn the

language at all or speak pidgin. Though French was not my second language as a

child, American English was and being a fearless child, I didn’t let my native

language Igbo and pidgin English “fossilize” my ability to grasp the English language

fluently. That is the benefits of being a L2 learner as a child. I see that with my

current student Isabella M, with her formal and informal interactions and work.

Tahere is an exceptional L2 learner in that she fully grasped Spanish and English with

such confidence and traverses both languages with such fluidity. I taught her in in 1 st

grade when she came to my 2nd grade enrichment, as my 2nd, 3rd, and 5th grader. I have

been able to see her growth throughout the years and now. That is not to say that

language acquisition as an adult will be as easy as that as language acquisition of that

of a child. Adults have insurmountable factors that can be detrimental to their success

that can cause them to lose focus in the apprehension of a language. Due to these

multitudes of factors, it is understandable that L2’s fall back on their native language

to bridge their competency in the second language. I know that while studying
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

French, I was distracted by other school assignments, work and relationship (friends

and family) factors. It wasn’t until I pursued a career in international affairs in both

the private and non-governmental sector, that made my intent in learning French the

focus and started pursuing French as a native speaker. In interviewing my current and

former students about being labeled or formerly being labeled L2s, they both noted

that they did not see any negative aspect. They enjoyed the ability to speak more than

language and felt that it made them special. Tahere, my former second grade student

noted that her goal was to learn French and Russian because (1) she always enjoyed

how I incorporated French throughout the day and now she is better understanding the

relationship French and Spanish have with each other; (2) she wants to learn Russian

because it is a hard language to learn and she would be able to leverage that skill set

in her future career as a diplomat.

Isabella M.
Isabella is a current 2nd grade student in my
classroom at Doral Academy Saddle.
She is a 7 years old girl of Japanese descent
and lives with both her parents, 4 siblings (3
older and one younger) and maternal
grandparents.
Tahere L.
Tahere is a current 8th grader at Hyde Park. She is
She is a 12 years old of Mexican descent living
with both parents and her little sister. Her parents
were immigrants and have lived her for the past 15
years but their English does not meet the threshold
of a native speaker.

In 2nd grade, she exited out of WIDA, has always

In Spring 2017, her WIDA profile showed
“Developing” in all 4 language domains.
However, in the past several months of
distance learning, Isabella shows
considerable growth that is beyond the
developing level. As we have not been able
to test for WIDA, I can only make an
informal assessment of where she would
ideally be positioned according to WIDA.
been an A+ (well above grade level student),
honor roll, and excelled in her standardized testing
at the 99th percentile.
She attributes her English fluency to that of her
native language and having to interpret for her
mom and dad. She recalls when I asked her to
assist me in interpreting for her classmate’s mom
in 3rd grade and the subsequent conversation that
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

Reading: 5 followed with me and her and the benefits of

Writing: 4
Listening: 4
Speaking:4
An area of help Isabella says she needs help
in is Reading and she wants her teachers to
know that she is a good student. She enjoys
making friends and has a feeling of pride in
doing so. Additionally, she takes pride in
speaking dual languages as “it helps her
explain things to her grandparents more
easily”.
learning multiple languages.
Her current setback is that she does not feel that
the schools she attends can truly give her an
experience in learning a language and that
financially, her parents cannot pay for a private
tutor. However, she is on a mission to acquire the
aforementioned languages in order to achieve her
career level.

It is understandable that there are many factors that attribute the inevitability

of fossilization. The influence of the native language compared to the target language

does create a constrain on L2 learners. Though certain languages are similar, new

ways of verbalization can be tricky. Behaviorists worried about this and this is why

they emphasized learning through stimuli/repetition to breakdown old habits.

Lightbown’s Critical Period Hypothesis causes more blockage for learners who have

passed puberty. For the moment Han and Selinker put forward compelling evidence

that fossilization “is internally determined, due to the constant functioning of

maturational and native language constraints” (43), but with social interaction,

motivation, and attentiveness, I think the ninety-five percent who fall short of native-

like or close to native-like proficiency because of ‘rigor mortis’ (Han, 13) of the brain

can be lessened.

REFERENCES:
Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

Corder, S.P. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1981.

Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, 1985.

Freeman, D., and Y. Freeman. Between Worlds: Access to Second Language

Acquisition. Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann, 2001.

Gass, S., and J. Schachter. Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge, MA. Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Gass, S. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. In S. Gass &

L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA:

Newbury House, 1983

Garza, E. Second Language Acquisition. Texas A&M University-Kingsville,

Han, Z. Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual

Matters, 2004.

Lado, R. Linguistics Across Cultures. University of Michigan Press, 1957.

Lenneberg, E. Biological Foundations of Language. Wiley Press: New York, 1967.

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1999.

Rickard, Peter. A History of French Language. Second Edition. London: Routledge,

1993.

Selinker, L. Interlanguage. New Frontiers in Second Language Learning. In J. Schumann

and N. Stenson. 1974.

Selinker, L. Language Transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in

language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983.

Tanaka, P. Fossilization: A Chronic Condition or is Consciouness-Rising the Cure?.

University of Birmingham, 2000.

Mary Enwemaya CILR 601
Fall 2018

Weinreich, U. Languages in contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York, 1953.