In the process of mastering a target
language (TL), second
language learners (L2) develop a linguistic system that is
self-contained and different from both the learner’s first
language (L1) and the TL (Nemser, 1971). This linguistic system has
been variously called interlanguage (IL) (Selinker, 1972),
approximative system (Nemser, 1971), idiosyncratic dialects or
transitional dialects (Corder, 1971), etc.
According to Corder (1981), this temporary and changing grammatical
system, IL, which is constructed by the learner, approximates the
grammatical system of the TL. In the process of L2 acquisition, IL
continually evolves into an ever-closer approximation of the TL,
and ideally, a learner’s IL should continue to advance gradually
until it becomes equivalent, or nearly equivalent, to the TL.
However, it has been observed that somewhere in the L2 learning
process, such an IL may reach one or more temporary restricting
phases during which the development of the IL appears to be
detained (Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972; Schumann, 1975). A
permanent cessation of progress toward the TL has been referred to
as fossilization (Selinker, 1972).
This linguistic phenomenon, IL
fossilization, occurs when progress in the acquisition of L2
is arrested, despite all reasonable attempts at learning (Selinker,
1972). Fossilization includes those items, rules, and sub-systems
that L2 learners tend to retain in their IL while in the process of
acquiring a particular TL, i.e., fossilization encompasses those
aspects of IL that become entrenched and permanent, and that will
only be eliminated with considerable effort, for the majority of L2
learners, regardless of explanation or instruction (Omaggio, 2001).
Moreover, it has also been noticed that adult L2 learners’ IL
systems, in particular, have a tendency, or propensity, to become
stagnated or solidified (Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 1972, Selinker
& Lamendella, 1980.), i.e., the language learners make no
further progress in IL development toward the TL, and become
permanently fossilized, in spite of the amount of exposure to the
L2.
Selinker (1972) suggests that the most
important distinguishing factor related to L2 acquisition is the
phenomenon of fossilization. However, both his explanation
that “fossilizable linguistic phenomena are
linguistic items, rules, and subsystems which speakers of a
particular native language will tend to keep in their interlanguage
relative to a particular target language, no matter what the age of
the learner or amount of explanation or instruction he receives in
the target language” (Selinker, 1972, p. 215) and his hypotheses
on IL fossilization are fascinating in that they contradict our basic understanding of the human
capacity to learn. How is it that some learners can overcome
IL fossilization, even if they only constitute, according to
Selinker, “a mere 5%” (1972, p. 212), while the majority of L2
learners cannot, ‘no matter what the age or amount of explanation
or instruction’? Or is it perhaps not that they cannot overcome
fossilization, but that they will not? Does complacency set in
after L2 learners begin to communicate, as far as they are
concerned, effectively enough, in the TL, and as a result does
motivation to achieve native-like competence diminish?
The concept of fossilization in SLA research is so
intrinsically related to IL that Selinker (1972) considers it to be
a fundamental phenomenon of all SLA and not just to adult learners.
Fossilization has received such wide recognition that it has been
entered in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language
(1987). Selinker’s concept of fossilization is similar to that of
Tarone (1976), Nemser (1971), and Sridhar (1980), all of whom
attempted to explore the causes of fossilization in L2 learners’
IL.
Fossilization has attracted considerable interest among researchers
and has engendered significant differences of opinion. The term,
borrowed from the field of paleontology, and
actually a misnomer, is effective because it conjures up an image
of dinosaurs being enclosed in residue and becoming a set of
hardened remains encased in sediment. The metaphor, as used in SLA
literature, is appropriate because it refers to earlier language
forms that become encased in a learner’s IL and that,
theoretically, cannot be changed by special attention or practice
of the TL. Despite debate over the degree of permanence,
fossilization is generally accepted as a fact of life in the
process of SLA.
One factor that has obvious relevance to fossilization is
motivation and various studies have been conducted regarding
motivation to learning L2 (Gardner, 1988; Gardner & Smythe,
1975; Schumann. 1976, 1978a, l978b), and the relationship of
fossilization to the learner’s communicative needs (Corder, 1978;
Nickel, 1998; Ushioda, 1993). Arguments have particularly emerged
regarding adult learners’ general lack of empathy with TL native
speakers and culture. According to Guiora et al. (1972), adults do
not have the motivation to change their accent and to acquire
native-like pronunciation. Unlike children, who are generally more
open to TL culture, adults have more rigid language ego boundaries.
It is hypothesized that adults may therefore be inclined to
establishing their cultural and ethnic identity, and this they do
by maintaining their stereotypical accent (Guiora et al., 1972).
Notwithstanding this, there is a lack of needed research,
particularly regarding achievement motivation, especially in view
of the fact that fossilization can be considered the most
distinctive characteristic of adult SLA. To date, fossilization
continues to remain something of a mystery in SLA.
加载中，请稍候......
加载中…