二语习得

Factors Contributing to Fossilization

Introduction

In the past decades, many researchers and scholars in linguistic circle and the interrelated fields have done a lot of studies of fossilization from different perspectives to discover the causes of fossilization, and a number of different theories have been proposed, among which Selinker’s five psycholinguistic processes, and three models (the biological, interactional and acculturation model), one principle (the multiple effects principle) and Krashen’s input hypothesis are worth mentioning. To be specific, these theories include:

1. Selinker’s five central processes

Selinker’s(1972)early explanation of the causes of fossilization consists of five central processes:

Language transfer: Learners’ IL systems are greatly influenced by their first language, and they cannot produce correct L2 output. Selinker regarded language transfer as the most decisive factor in leading to fossilization.

Transfer of training: L2 learners may have done excessive training on certain IL structures that they cannot successfully continue to develop new structures. For instance, if a learner has too much training on the structure containing the verb “be”, he may form the habit of using “be” when it is not necessary.

Inappropriate learning strategies: Learners may use inappropriate strategies in their learning progress and thus cause the fossilization in IL, such as translating L1 sentences into L2 sentences directly, etc. Inappropriate communication strategies: When learners are communicating in L2, they may apply some inappropriate strategies so as not to influence the fluency or effect of communication, such as avoidance, simplification, reduction of lexicon.

Overgeneralization: This type of fossilization consists mainly of the overgeneralization of some target language rules, like “goed” “teached”.

2. The biological causes

One of the most remarkable representatives is Lenneberg. Lenneberg advanced Critical Period Hypothesis in his monumental, The Function of Language, in 1967, believing that there was a neurologically based critical period, ending around the onset of puberty, beyond which complex mastery of a language, first or second, was not possible. Besides Lenneberg, many scholars, including Scovel(1988), Long(1990), Patkowski(1994)are supportive of the biological theory.

Lamendella used “sensitive period” to explain the acquisition of second language. Lamendella(1977)also proposed another concept of infrasystem. He holds that while L1 acquisition calls for an infrasystem, L2 acquisition also requires its corresponding infrasystem. If a learner has not developed the infrasystem for acquiring a second language or if this infrasystem is underdeveloped, then he or she has to turn to the already-developed infrasystem for mother tongue to acquire

the second language. However, the infrasystem for mother tongue is not appropriate for acquiring the second language, after the close of the critical period for primary language acquisition, the L2 learner stands a greater chance of fossilizing far from target-language norms.

The Critical Period Hypothesis mostly explains the fossilization of L2 pronunciation, as the available evidence suggests that children do better than adult L2 learners in pronunciation and speaking tests, while adolescent and adult L2 learners are similar to or better than children in the acquisition of grammar and morphemes.

3. Social and cultural causes

L2 learner’s lack of desire to acculturate is also the reason for fossilization. Schumman(1981)proposed the Acculturation Hypothesis to interpret fossilization from a social-psychological perspective.

According to Schumman, acculturation means the social and psychological integration of the learner with the target language group. In Schumman’s Acculturation Hypothesis, acculturation is seen as the determining variable in the sense that it controls the level of linguistic success achieved by second language learners. Stauble(1980)also affirmed the essential roles of social and psychological distance in second language acquisition.

4. Vigil&Oller’s interactional model

Vigil&Oller presented an early model of fossilization which focused on the role of extrinsic feedback. They expounded their opinions in the following:

(1)When the language learners communicate with their teachers and classmates, some incorrect language output sometimes plays the role of input which leads to the learners’ language fossilization.

(2)The information transmitted in interpersonal communication includes two kinds of information: one is cognitive information and another is affective information. The former contains facts, assumptions, and beliefs which are expressed in language. The latter is expressed in the form of facial expressions, intonation and gestures etc.

Vigil&Oller argued that the interactive feedback received by a learner has a controlling influence on fossilization. Certain types of feedback were said to prompt learners to modify their knowledge of the L2, while other types encouraged learners to stand pat. They suggested that there were cognitive and affective dimensions to feedback. In this scheme, a combination of positive cognitive feedback and negative affective feedback was most likely to promote fossilization, while negative cognitive and positive affective feedback combined to cause learners to modify their linguistic knowledge.

According to Han, one problem found in the interactional models is that there is no way to determine what percentage of cognitive feedback needs to be positive in order to trigger fossilization. Another problematic aspect is the

question of whether negative cognitive feedback destabilizes all the rules used to assemble the utterance.

5. Krashen’s input hypothesis

Krashen believes that most adult second-language learners “fossilize”. He concluded 5 possible causes of fossilization:

(1)Insufficient quantity of input

Krashen claims that insufficient input is the most obvious cause of fossilization. Some second-language performers may cease progress simply because they have stopped getting comprehensible input.

(2)Inappropriate quality of input

Inappropriate quality of input, which means input of the wrong sort, or input filled with routines and patterns, a limited range of vocabulary, and little new syntax, is more subtle than insufficient quantity of input.

(3)The affective filter

Comprehensible input is not sufficient for full language acquisition. To acquire the entire language, including late-acquired elements that do not contribute much to communication, a low affective filter may be necessary. The affective filter is a block that prevents input from reaching the Language Acquisition Device

(LAD),and affects acquisition, preventing full acquisition from taking place.

(4)The output filter

The output filter is a device that sometimes restrains second-language users from performing their competence (Krashen, 1985).

(5)The acquisition of deviant forms

This may occur in two different kinds of situation, both of which are characterized by beginners being exposed nearly exclusively to imperfect versions of the second language. The first situation can be called the “extreme foreign-language” situations. The second situation is that of the performer in the informal environment, where he has communication demands that exceed his second-language competence, and is faced with a great deal of incomprehensible input.

6. Multiple effects principle

In a later study, Selinker and Lakshmanan (1992 emphasize the importance of the role of language transfer in fossilization. They raise the question of why “certain linguistic structures become fossilized while others do not” They suggest that the multiple effects principle (MEP) may

help explain this. The MEP states that two or more SLA factors, working in

tandem, tend to promote stabilization of interlanguage forms leading to possible fossilization. Among various possible SLA factors that have fossiling effects language transfer has been singled out as the principal one.

In their paper,Han and Selinker(1997)described a longitudinal case study they made to prove the MEP prediction. We may take what they said in the conclusion par as a summary of the main points of the MEP: What is showed in the case study “brings direct corronoration to the MEP

in that language transfer functions as a co-factor in setting multiple effects, and that when it conspires with other SLA processes, there is a greater chance of stabilization of the interlanguage structure”.

Conclusion

In summary, factors contributing to language fossilization have been illustrated, whether in terms of empirical studies of not, by different researchers from amount of perspectives This paper has listed a number of reasons from the following six views: Selinker’s five central processes (1972), biologica causes, social and cultural causes, Vigil&Oller’s interactiona model, Krashen’s input hypothesis and Multiple Effects principle.There is no doubt that causes of “cessation” of learners’ might owe to other elements, however, knowing the above six ones, at their least value, inspires some solutions in overcoming the phenomenon of fossilization.

References:

[1]Selinker.L. Interlanguage[J].International Review of Applied Linguistics,1972.

[2]Selinker. L.Fossilization: What we think we know [J].Internet, 1996

[3]Lemendella,J.T.General principles of neurofunctional organization and their manifestations in primary and non-primary language acquisition[J]. Language

Learning, 1977, (27), 155-196.

[4]Vigil,N.&Oller,J. Learning,1976.

Rule fossilization: A tentative model[J].Language

[5]Ellis，R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

[6]Rod Ellis.Underastanding Second Language Acquisition[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1999.

[7]Krashen,S. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication[M].London:Longman,1985.

[8]李炯英：中介语石化现象研究30年综观[J]， Foreign Language Teaching Abroad, 2003

[9]陈慧媛：关于语言僵化现象起因的理论探讨[J]，外语教育与研究,1999.（3）：21-24

[10]牛强：过渡语的石化现象及其教学启示[J]，外语与外语教学,2000（4）：28-31