Chapter 3

Review of Related Literature

Language fossilization refers to the process in the learning of a secondary language in

which the student has more and more difficulty furthering his fluency in the language, until

eventually, the student can learn no more. The language, for all intents and purposes, has

been set in stone in the mind of the learner at this last point. Some potential for learning

small superficial aspects of the language might still exist, such as vocabulary, but conceptual

understanding of the material will not develop any further. Fossilization, thus, is a sort of

stagnation in secondary language acquisition. Fossilization often means that certain aspects

of the language were learned incompletely or incorrectly, such as grammatical features like

conjugating verbs in the wrong fashion or using the wrong vocabulary, in such a manner that

they cannot be unlearned and replaced with correct usage. Fossilization may also consist of a

sort of subconscious clinging to aspects of the learner's mother tongue, for instance, with

syntax and phonology. This may reflect an inability to similarly “unlearn” characteristics of a

mother language for the purpose of learning another; the native language so deeply

hardwired into the brain that its paradigms cannot be replaced when attempting to learn a

new and foreign language. Selinker (1972) hypothesized that fossilization is a signature

characteristics of second language acquisition, tied to a unique cognitive mechanism called

the latent psychological structure (LPS) – an already formulated arrangement in the brain

which prevents the learner from acquiring the target language norms in a permanent way.

Selinker further predicted that a lack of complete mastery of the target language is typical

and evitable among L2 learners. The hypothesis known as fossilization hypothesis has drawn

interest from L2 researchers and practitioners. Fossilization is recognized as a widespread

phenomenon in second language acquisition although many studies which described

fossilized interlanguage but researchers question more on identifying the linguistic behavior

of those whom second language acquisition has ceased. Every second language learner

experiences this problem particularly evident to college students, professionals, immigrants,

and tourists. These learners may reach a level of competency that allows them in the

language’s cultural setting or to communicate with reasonable effectiveness. However, there

is a hint that a speaker is not a native speaker of the language and those fossilized elements of

the second language hinder for a while their communication entry into the target culture.

(Blue mark – introduction part)

The reality of fossilization disturbs the language learner in achieving native-like

levels of fluency. Language Teachers want their students to be fluent. As an example, a

college student whose L1 is Cebuano-Butuanon learns English as L2 did not much have

problems with tenses and genders because both language have it but have problems in

pronunciation. A student, whose L1 is Chinese learns English as L2 has to work extra hard

with he/she or future/past tenses because in Chinese (from what I understand) those aspects

are influenced through context or through standalone words like yesterday/today/tomorrow

without affecting a sentence further on, but, then more so works the hardest on

pronunciation. If a language learner is not happy with the state of their language and need to

have improved, it is evident that language teachers need to realize the theoretical importance

of the construct in understanding second language construction.

Any discussion of fossilization must begin with the concept of interlanguage. Ellis

(1985) notes that there are two distinctions of second language acquisition (SLA). One view

is that put forward by mentalist, or psycholinguistic, theories of language acquisition which

is that learners acquire a second language (L2) in much the same way as they acquire a first

language (L1) because of an inbuilt faculty for language acquisition. The other view is based

on behaviorist concepts of SLA where environment factors and L1 interference shape

acquisition. As far as language learning is concerned, we can observe that one of the

elements of the final outcome that learners can produce is precisely fossilization

(Skehan ,1989). Specifically, the classroom and materials, the social context, the

opportunities for target language use, the learner and the process of learning itself can be

some of the sources for fossilization, but they are not the only ones as we will see. What

follows from this is that the presence or absence of fossilization can give us very important

insights into many different aspects of learning a language. As far as teaching is concerned,

Stern (1983) points out the fact that the interlanguage in many instances is too fossilized, too

idiosyncratic, and does not move reliably through better and better approximations towards

target language norms. In this case, from the point of view of teaching a 'foreign language, a

sound knowledge of the foundations of fossilization appears to be necessary, as well as of the

factors and situations that can cause its occurrence. For this purpose, the intent of this paper

is to present critical review of literature on the recent construct of the interlanguage

fossilization.

According to Han (2012), the centerpiece of the fossilization hypothesis (Selinker,

1972) is that SLA inevitably falls short of complete attainment, with certain, deviances from

the target language norms remaining permanent in the L2 system, known as in interlanguage.

Specifically, the hypothesis points to linguistic features such as items, rules, and subsystems

that a speaker of particular native language will tend to keep in their interlanguage relative to

a particular target language, in which obtain regardless of age or amount of explanation and
 instruction one receives in the target language. The hypothesis sees fossilization as both a

physical entity and a cognitive mechanism. As a mechanism, it exist in a latent psychological

structure (LPS) genetically determined in the brain which has five central processes:

language transfer, transfer of training, learning strategies, communication strategies, and

overgeneralization. Han (2012) explained that the combination of these process produce

fossilized competencies that once the five processes interact the impact will be stronger on

interlanguage and may result in fossilized competence. The entire interlanguage system

exhibits little syntactic growth yet vocabulary continues to expand.

Han (2004) updates the definition of fossilization as a process whereby learning

ceases in spite of (a) adequate motivation to learn, (b) abundant exposure to input, and (c)

plentiful opportunities for communicative practice. Central to the original as well as to the

updated definition is that fossilization is selective and local, rather than global. Han and

Odlin (2006, p. 8) have hypothesized that “L2 acquisition will never have a global end state;

rather, it will have fossilization, namely, permanent local cessation of development”

(emphasis added). This hypothesis has been amply supported by research on L2 end-state

grammars. Overall, fossilization has so far been reported for child, adolescent, and adult L2

learners in naturalistic and classroom contexts.

In the context of which linguistic elements are usually fossilized, the study of Tajeddin

and Tabatabaeian (2017) reveals that grammatical, lexical, and cohesive were errors identified.

The study employed a mixed method approach. Sixty advanced L1 Persian learners of English

studying in Iran were chosen to perform two written and three spoken tasks. Three main

categories such as grammatical errors, lexical errors, and cohesive errors were identified. When

learners’ ability in noticing their errors were investigated, it was found out that they could notice
fossilized forms they had produced. Most of the errors observed were categorized in the category

of grammatical errors.

Moreover, the study of Hasbun (2007) which was conducted in the school of Modern

Language at the University of Costa Rica to the eight groups of students ranging from beginners

to advanced learners of English who were enrolled in B.A English and B.A in Teaching English

as Foreign Language ages 18-22 years old, the study reveals that errors concerning the use of

prepositions and articles as well as the utilization of verbs seem to be persistent overtime, and

thus, tend to become fossilized in spite of pedagogic interventions. Her claim is grounded on the

fact that not only is those errors still present in the written work of the students in the most

advanced composition courses, but they are also most frequent.

In the study of Wei (2008), he draws out the implication of interlanguage fossilization to

second language acquisition of Chinese speakers in terms of types of fossilization. Chinese

speakers’ interlanguage fossilization occurs in phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic,

and pragmatic structures. In English there are certain pronunciations which do not exist in

Chinese. When phonological errors are repeatedly made and eventually stay stable in an

incorrect manner, phonological fossilization occurs. In morphological form, some linguistic

phenomena does not exist in Chinese, it often leads Chinese students to forget the transformation

or to misuse the form. The most typical manifestation of syntactic fossilization among Chinese

learners is presented in tense. Chinese does not have obvious tense differentiation, whereas

English has present, past and future tenses. Semantic fossilization refers to the use of language

forms that exist in TL but do not represent the meanings L2 learners intend to express in the

context, like dragon is a symbol of evil in western culture but it is a symbol of power in China.

Inappropriate language use results in misunderstanding, embarrassment, and even insult.

 Knowing the types of fossilization will lead to identifying the causes of fossilization.

According to Krashen (1982) fossilization shows during performance that it is independent of the

learners’ age and that it is independent of appropriate input. It inevitably appears during the

acquisition of the second language in the vast majority of cases. Duca (2013) posits that two of

the main causes of fossilization are interference from the native language and the age (critical

period hypothesis). The native-like level of proficiency can be developed if the learners begin to

study the second language at pre-puberty. This applies particularly for pronunciation.

In a longitudinal case study of Smith (2007) of an adult second language learner with

highly developed meta-linguistic knowledge explores the concept of fossilization and fluency in

interlanguage. The study reveals that each learner’s personal factor – affect, motivation,

language learning strategies and awareness – contribute important reasons for the balance

between accuracy and fluency that each learner finds in second language.it suggests that, along

the concepts of accuracy and fossilization, fluency be considered important interlanguage

characteristic and that each learner’s sacrifice accuracy to fluency, or of fluency to accuracy, is

heavily influenced by personal factors as well as the degree of formality necessary in different

types of language production. However, a learner’s motivation and her awareness of her place

along the interlanguage continua do not necessarily lead to appropriate language learning

strategies. There is a strong evidence that positive reinforcement of the learner’s emphasis on

fluency throughout second language learning experience has led to fossilization of certain

structures within the second language.

The study of Smith (2007) is supported by Sanclimens (2018) on the matter of personal

factor. As Sanclimens stated, after Selinker (1984) predicted that 95% of second language

learners would never attain native-like command of the target language, fossilization became a
major area of interest. Although the potential causes remain controversial, several scholars have

pointed at the absence of motivation as a possibility. The findings indicate that there is an

evident correlation between strong levels of motivation and linguistic achievement, but the

attempt to make simple comparisons of L1 and L2 speakers in terms of their language attainment

might be problematic.

The analysis of fossilization in this paper has shown that fossilization is an inevitable

process in adult second language acquisition, and as such, it deserves due attention from both

researchers and educators. The discussion of the relationship between instruction and

fossilization reveals that the context of learning is also a factor that influences the acquisition of

target language. When the teaching materials are not authentic enough or language teachers

themselves explain certain language phenomena wrongly and ask language learners to over-drill

these language patterns, learners are more likely to fossilize these patterns. Meanwhile, if the

teaching materials stress some parts and ignore other parts, others will be likely to fossilize.

Long (1983) noted that instruction ought to show greater influence on beginners than on

advanced learners, which bears out the fact that backsliding and stopping of learning exist. The

―interaction‖ put forward by Ellis (1994) as he suggested that the uncorrected language input of

teachers to students may have an effect on language input, which leads to some permanent

errors. In the inter-personal communication, while a message is communicated, feedback may

cause positive, neutral or negative psychological influence on the L2 learner. Different reactions

may produce different uses of target language, which may cause fossilization. Therefore, the

quantity and quality of language input are very important. In language teaching, we have to

guarantee the amount of target language input to make sure that learners can attain a proficiency

of target language, as figure 8 shows. At the same time, we have to lay emphasis on the quantity
of language input as well. As Yang (2015) stated, interlanguage fossilization in foreign language

learning is inevitable. The careful analysis of its causes and the specific adjustment of teaching

strategies can effectively help the foreign language learners overcome the effect of interlanguage

fossilization on professional knowledge and on psychological level, and rapidly and stably

promote their language level.

(Black Mark – body/discussion)

In the course of learning English, inter-language fossilization is a widely-present and

inevitable phenomenon, which deserves to arouse the attention of language educators and

learners. Given the current understanding of fossilization, longitudinal and cross-sectional

studies are better integrative approach to understand specific concerns of fossilization and

second language acquisition. With the research findings discussed in this paper, gaps are

drawn such as : What are the features of fossilization? What linguistic elements are usually

fossilized? When will it occur? How will it occur? How long will it last? Does fossilization

occur differentially for foreign language learning in classroom setting to that of the second

language acquisition in naturalistic setting? How fossilization begins? and Will it be

temporary or a permanent condition?

Nota Bene

The last part in red is my stand about the readings I have about fossilization. For RRL instead of a
conclusion this part should be the synthesis on the RRL you have read. In this case, I have read only 10
reviews.