Republic of the Philippines

Philippine Normal University

The National Center for Teacher Education
Mindanao
The Multicultural Education Hub
Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur

ELE 701- SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

CRITICAL REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON SLA

RETHINKING FOSSILIZATION

Making mistakes is a necessary and fundamental part of the process for any learner to
acquire a second language, or L2. The function of the teacher can be considered to be extremely
relevant in this situation. For teachers, making corrections and offering feedback can be a
difficult but necessary task. However, studies that tried to confirm the practice's ineffectiveness
on students have been introduced in an effort by researchers to disprove it. The term
"fossilization" was coined in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) to describe the point
at which learners' acquisition of their L2 has stopped. Since this hypothesis was proposed, many
reviews and critiques have been made, and the idea's scope has never stopped expanding.

Over the past years, research on SLA has produced a wide range of interpretations for the
concept of "fossilization," which was first introduced by Selinker (1972) to describe the absence
of grammatical development in second language learning. This indicates that there has been
progress in the overall comprehension of the theoretical construct. However, inconsistent
interpretation and application lead to misunderstanding, which can be detrimental to the study
and use of second languages. The purpose of this article is to shed light on the notion of
fossilization for readers by defining and describing fossilization in the context of learning second
and foreign languages.

Theoretical Frameworks

In SLA, the term "fossilization" describes the phenomenon where language learners fail
to reach native-like competence and instead reach a plateau in their language proficiency despite
continuous exposure and practice. The concept of fossilization was first introduced by Selinker
in the 1972 paper Interlanuage. In addition, we have to give some linguists credit for planting the
seeds of Selinker's theories. To begin with, American-Polish linguist Uriel Weinreich is well
known for having supplied the fundamental data that served as the basis for Selinker's
investigation. Weinreich mentioned "permanent grammatical influence" in 1953.
 From the 1970s to the present, the concept of fossilization has undergone substantial
expansion in its application. Selinker and Lamendella provided an explicit definition of
fossilization in 1978.

“ … a permanent cessation of IL learning before the learner has attained TL norms at all
levels of linguistic structure and in all discourse domains in spite of the learner’s positive ability,
opportunity, and motivation to learn and acculturate into target society.” (in Han, p.15)

William Nemser (1971:117) is another scholar who wrote about "the formation of
permanent intermediate systems and subsystems." These subsystems and systems are essentially
aberrant phonological and grammatical structures. Effective language instruction, in Nemser's
words, "implores preventing, or postponing as long as possible" the formation of these unusual
structures. Therefore, Nemser created the term approximative system along the same lines as
fossilization. This term describes the learner's attempt to use a deviant linguistic system when
attempting to use the L2. The nature of these approximative systems varies according to factors
like learning style, exposure to the target language, and proficiency level.

According to Corder, 1967 Error Analysis influenced the inter-language hypothesis but
differed in the manner in which mistakes were made. On the contrary, Selinker (1972) asserted
that mistakes were not to be seen as mistakes but as a necessary component of the learning
process. Interlanguage is a stage prior to learning a language which is constantly evolving and
may never be finished. It can be viewed as a progression of rules in the brain of a person picking
up a foreign or second language. There is a transitional phase between his or her L1 as well as
the target language.

Longitudinal Studies

It is important to note that fossilization is a result of several factors, and as such, its
existence cannot be explained solely by corrective feedback. (Han, Forty Years Later: Updating
the Fossilization Hypothesis, 8). However, studies in this field may indicate a connection
between fossilization and feedback, making it extremely relevant to the field of education.
Consequently, an overview of the research findings by Mukkatash, Vigil, Oller, and Washburn
will be provided.

Mukkatash's study focused on adult Arabian students and looked at the significance of
grammatical explanation and error correction. Based on the data gathered, Mukkatash explored
some of the most common errors made by his students, including verbal errors, incorrect tenses,
BE-deletion, and relative clauses, to name a few. The fact that grammar correction and feedback
had no discernible impact on Mukkatash's students may be the most pertinent finding of his
study. Mukkatash describes:

“in spite of all this teaching of explicit grammar, the subjects continued to produce basic
and elementary grammatical error” (202).

As a result, Mukkatash came to the conclusion that the research's subjects had fossilized
and were unable to advance. A mistaken inference could also be made from Mukkatash's
findings. Correction and feedback seemed pointless, according to the researcher, even though
Mukkatash didn't repeat the experiment with any other groups. This is significant because
comparing the outcomes could have provided stronger evidence to support Mukkatash's primary
claims.

Meanwhile, learners' responses to feedback are the focus of Vigil & Oller's study. The
data revealed a clear correlation between the absence of feedback and susceptibility to
fossilization, which stood in stark contrast to Mukkatash's assertions. According to Vigil &
Oller:

“If the corrective feedback . . . drops below some minimal level or disappears altogether,
the grammar . . . will tend to fossilize” (285).

Overall, this study sheds light on a few aspects of the significance of feedback as a means
of helping students get better and, in the event that it is lacking, as a potential cause of
fossilization. Vigil & Oller suggest:

“unless learners receive appropriate sorts of cognitive feedback concerning errors, those
errors can be expected to fossilize” (294).

Numerous studies have attempted to show the inefficiency of and negative consequences
of feedback and correction. The paper by Truscott argues that written grammar correction in L2
classrooms is ineffective. By exposing earlier studies on first language acquisition (L1A) and
contrasting them with L2 research, Truscott argues against the notion that correction is pointless:

“The studies discussed above show that the situation for L2 is the same as for L1:
Grammar correction in writing courses is not helpful.” (Truscott, The Case Against Grammar
Correction in L2 Writing Classes 333).

According to Truscott, these findings regarding L1A may therefore correspond to

comparable outcomes in L2A. Timing and the teacher's role are two more factors that Truscott
cites in support of his argument against the value of grammar correction.

Interlanguage and Fossilization

Selinker (1972, as cited in Aziez, 2016) claimed that there are no less than five main
psycholinguistic processes that are usually found in second or foreign language learners:
borrowing patterns from their native language (language transfer), applying prior knowledge
from instructors or textbooks (transfer of training), the conscious attempt by learners to master
the target language (strategies of L2 learning), expressing meaning using the lexicons and
grammatical systems already known by learners (strategies of L2 communication), and extending
patterns from the target language (overgeneralization of TL linguistic material).

The first process which is language transfer (LT) is also referred to as L1 interference.
Corder (1974, as cited in Puspita, 2019) claimed that a learner’s mother tongue may interfere
learner’s language acquisition and this is called interlingual interference. Language transfer in
interlanguage is a process in which the learners’ first language rules and systems affect the target
language acquisition and the linguistic knowledge of the first language is applied to the target
language performance. (Mahmood & Murad, 2018). From this perspective, the interlanguage
created this way is a composite of non-existent structures and loan translation.

The second central process leading to fossilization is the transfer of training. Transfer of
training, or, to put it another way, poor teaching, resulting in “poor language”. This consists
mostly of the emergence of erroneous language forms and/or overproduction of the correct
linguistic items as a result of ineffective training processes, such as exercises conducted by
teachers or taken from textbooks. In contrast to the transfer of training, strategies of L2 learning
lay a large portion of the blame for the resulting IL forms on the learner. It is thus because the
learner’s attitude toward the information to be acquired plays a role in language development.
When the learner breaks and ignores the rules, or when the learner simplifies the TL, the output
produced lacks standard and normative language forms (Wysocka, 2007).

Debates and Criticisms

Since the hypothesis was proposed, a variety of diverse studies have been produced by
the fossilization literature. Accordingly, Han underlines:

“fossilization – in the eyes of many – is a product as well as a process; it affects the

entire IL system as well as its sub-systems; it is literally permanent as well as relatively
permanent; it is persistent and resistant” (Han, Fossilization: Five central issues 218).

However, it appears that the trend favors including the fossilization theory. The fact that a
dictionary included an entry for the construct just five years after it was created serves as
evidence of this. In this context, Long asserts:

“a feat apparently accomplished by no other SLA term before” (488).

The extant literature on fossilization devolves into both critical and defensive analysis of
the theory. According to Birdsong, it is evident that second language learners do not possess
native-like abilities (175). In addition, Birdsong views the term "fossilization" as "a label in
search of a referent" (172), implying that there are different interpretations of this concept.
According to Birdsong, a number of factors contribute to learners' inability to acquire native-like
grammar, so fossilization alone is insufficient to explain why they are unable to do so.

While Long refutes several of Selinker's primary assertions, but he does not deny
fossilization, "it is possible for IL grammars to become fossilized" (487). Instead, Long disputes
the techniques used along with the deficiency of sufficient empirical research. Additionally,
Long critiques Selinker's theory of terrified learners' ILs, stating that ILs are not constant and
change over time.
Practical Implications

An additional consideration is the age at which Selinker makes reference. As Selinker

states, "no matter what the learner's age" (215). Thus, while Long claims that "learners" should
consider age, Selinker did not think that age was a significant factor. originally encountered prior
to the end of one or more periods of language development that are sensitive can perform at
levels comparable to natives" (491). Age and SLA success also seem to be closely correlated
with the age at which SLA is started. This is especially true when it comes to pronunciation.

Perhaps Long's most significant contribution was his debunking of multiple studies which
had anticipated finding subjects that had fossilized, observing the following four guiding
principles: choosing unsuitable applicants for the position, presuming but not proving
fossilization studies, insufficient data and conclusions, and the application of improper analytic
techniques - most of these studies fell short of providing a comprehensive and empirical
demonstration of the fossilization's existence (501).

The study of fossilization has applications for language instruction. It emphasizes how
crucial it is to deal with recurring mistakes at an early stage of language learning in order to stop
them from becoming embedded. Teachers can create focused interventions by using this
knowledge.

Through interlanguage research, people have come to understand that making mistakes is
not a sign of failure but rather an inevitable phenomenon and educators ought to "respect" their
pupils' mistakes since they are a necessary step toward mastering the target language.
Acknowledging mistakes does not imply ignoring them; rather, it implies that they shouldn't be
viewed as being a necessary indicator of the learner's ignorance, sloth, or malice.

English majors can achieve the communicative goal after a year or two of focused study
using a specific degree of strategy and ability in communication. On the one hand, educators
should encourage their motivation at this time. Make them dissatisfied with where they are at and
continue to learn about the goal through various means like actively using language. Students'
interlanguage is motivated in this way and continues to approach the goal. Conversely, educators
must take into account the task's complexity, intensity, and level of challenge for the students. in
addition to self-directed learning and the capacity for judgment to guarantee that students can
finish the assignments and maintain some curiosity without being anticlimactic.

The best possible input and output are needed for interlanguage development, systematic
ability can be developed, and the assumption can be verified by the output, turning the language
into an automatic mechanism and advancing the progression of interlanguage.

Effectively preventing the formation of fossilization can be achieved by carefully

planning feedback. Instructors ought to deliver timely feedback following the conclusion of a
learning assignment. Based on interactive feedback provided by Vigil and Oller, the most
favorable one is the fusion of negative cognitive feedback and positive emotional feedback. The
former motivates and inspires the former instructs students to keep learning, while the latter
suggests that they make some adjustments.
 Each student has developed a set of cognitive schemata in the cognitive structure of the
human brain, and teachers can support their development to reorganize these well-known
schema. Put differently, educators encourage learners to cultivate a unique proficiency in
utilizing their ability to articulate unknown meaning using known schema can help them develop
their divergent and creative thinking.

References:

Shiddiq, S. M. (2022, December 22). INTERLANGUAGE CONCERNING FOSSILIZATION

AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR: A LITERATURE REVIEW ON SECOND AND
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION. Shiddiq | Journal of English for Academic and
Specific Purposes (JEASP).
https://ejournal.uin-malang.ac.id/index.php/jeasp/article/view/18998/9966

Wei, X. (2008, June 1). Implication of IL Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition. English
Language Teaching, 1(1).
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v1n1p127

Qian, M., & Xiao, Z. (2010, February 3). Strategies for Preventing and Resolving Temporary
Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition. English Language Teaching, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n1p180

Jiang, Y. (2023, January 1). A Study on the Fossilization of Oral English and English Writing in
Second Language Acquisition.
https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-004-6_49

Steve. (2023, January 27). Fossilization in second language acquisition. English Coach Online.
https://englishcoachonline.com/blog/fossilization-in-second-language-acquisition/