Interlanguage fossilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Interlanguage fossilization is a phenomenon of second language acquisition in which second language learners develop and retain a linguistic system, or interlanguage, that is self-contained and different from both the learner’s first language and the target language.[1] This linguistic system has been variously called interlanguage,[2] approximative system,[1] idiosyncratic dialects, or transitional dialects.[3]


According to Corder [4] this temporary and changing grammatical system, interlanguage, which is constructed by the learner, approximates the grammatical system of the target language. In the process of second language acquisition, interlanguage continually evolves into an ever-closer approximation of the target language, and ideally should advance gradually until it becomes equivalent, or nearly equivalent, to the target language. However, during the second language learning process, an interlanguage may reach one or more temporary restricting phases when its development appears to be detained;.[1][2][5] A permanent cessation of progress toward the target language has been referred to as fossilization.[2] This linguistic phenomenon, interlanguage fossilization, can occur despite all reasonable attempts at learning.[2] Fossilization includes those items, rules, and sub-systems that second language learners tend to retain in their interlanguage, that is, all those aspects of interlanguage that become entrenched and permanent, and that the majority of second language learners can only eliminate with considerable effort.[6] Moreover, it has also been noticed that this occurs particularly in adult second language learners’ interlanguage systems.[1][2][7]


Selinker suggests that the most important distinguishing factor related to second language acquisition is the phenomenon of fossilization.[2] 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”[2] and his hypotheses on interlanguage fossilization are fascinating in that they contradict our basic understanding of the human capacity to learn. How is it that some learners can overcome interlanguage fossilization, even if they only constitute, according to Selinker, “a mere 5%”,[2] while the majority of second language 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 second language learners begin to communicate, as far as they are concerned, effectively enough, in the target language, and as a result does motivation to achieve native-like competence diminish?

The concept of fossilization in SLA research is so intrinsically related to interlanguage that [2] 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 [1][8] and [9] all of whom attempted to explore the causes of fossilization in second language learners’ interlanguage.

Fossilization has attracted considerable interest among researchers and has engendered significant differences of opinion. The term, borrowed from the field of paleontology, 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 interlanguage and that, theoretically, cannot be changed by special attention or practice of the target language. Despite debate over the degree of permanence, fossilization is generally accepted as a fact of life in the process of SLA.


Many researchers have attempted to explain this.[1][2][3][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Workers have attempted to discover: 1) why fossilization occurs [10][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] 2) the precipitating conditions [14][15][16][17][21] 3) what kind of linguistic material is likely to be fossilized [22][23] and 4) what type of learners are more prone to fossilize.[10][24][25][26][27][28][29] However, there has been almost no investigation by SLA theorists on the possibilities of preventing or overcoming fossilization, and little explanation related to those adult second language learners who overcome one or more ‘areas of stability’ in interlanguage—those learners whose interlanguage does not fossilize, and who reach a high level of proficiency in the second language [2][30][31][32][33]).

One factor of obvious relevance is motivation, and studies have been conducted regarding motivation to learning second language,[14][15][16][34][35] and the relationship of fossilization to the learner’s communicative needs.[11][36][37] Arguments have emerged regarding adult learners’ general lack of empathy with target language native speakers and culture. According to,[38] adults do not have the motivation to change their accent and to acquire native-like pronunciation. Unlike children, who are generally more open to target language culture, adults have more rigid language ego boundaries. Thus, adults may be inclined to establishing their pre-existing cultural and ethnic identity, and this they do by maintaining their stereotypical accent.[39] Notwithstanding this, there is a lack of needed research, particularly regarding achievement motivation, especially considering that fossilization can be considered the most distinctive characteristic of adult SLA.

See also[edit]



The text of this article is taken with permission from The Role of Achievement Motivation on the Interlanguage Fossilization of Middle-Aged English-as-a-Second-Language Learners by Dr. Zoran Vujisić (2007).


  1. ^ a b c d e f Nemser, 1971
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k (Selinker, 1972)
  3. ^ a b Corder, 1971
  4. ^ Corder,1981
  5. ^ Schumann, 1975
  6. ^ Omaggio, 2001
  7. ^ Selinker & Lamendella, 1980
  8. ^ Tarone (1976)
  9. ^ Sridhar (1980)
  10. ^ a b c Adjemian, 1976
  11. ^ a b Corder, 1978
  12. ^ De Prada Creo, 1990
  13. ^ Nakuma, 1998
  14. ^ a b c d Schumann, 1976
  15. ^ a b c d Schumann, 1978a
  16. ^ a b c d Schumann, 1978b
  17. ^ a b c Schumann, 1990
  18. ^ Naiman, et al., 1996
  19. ^ Seliger, 1978
  20. ^ Stern, 1975
  21. ^ a b Virgil & Oller, 1976)
  22. ^ Selinker & Lakshamanan 1992
  23. ^ Todeva, 1992
  24. ^ Scovel, 1969
  25. ^ Scovel, 1978
  26. ^ Scovel, 1988
  27. ^ Scovel, 2000
  28. ^ Selinker, Swain & Dumas, 1975
  29. ^ Virgil & Oller
  30. ^ Acton, 1984
  31. ^ Birdsong, 1992
  32. ^ Bongaerts, et al., 1997
  33. ^ Ioup, Boustagui, El Tigi, & Mosell, 1994
  34. ^ Gardner, 1988
  35. ^ Gardner & Smythe, 1975
  36. ^ Nickel, 1998
  37. ^ Ushioda, 1993
  38. ^ Guiora et al. (1972)
  39. ^ Guiora et al., 1972

Further reading[edit]

  • Acton, W. (1984). Changing fossilized pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 18, (1), 71-85.
  • Adjemian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning, 26,(2), 297-320.
  • Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Aneuaee, 68, (4), 706-755.
  • Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very advanced late L2 learners. In David Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. IRAL, 9, (2), 147-160.
  • Corder, S. P. (1978). Language-learner language. In J. C. Richards (Ed), Understanding second and foreign language learning (pp. 71–92). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • De Prada Creo, E. (1990). The Process of fossilization in interlanguage. (Paper presented at the 9th annual meeting of the World Congress of Applied Linguistics, sponsored by the International Association for Applied Linguistics, Thessaloniki, Greece, April 15?25, 1990).(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362 012).
  • Gardner, R. C. (1988). Attitudes and motivation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 135-148.
  • Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1975). Motivation and second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, (3), 218-230.
  • Guiora, A., Beit-Hallahmi, B., & Brannon, R. (1972). The effects of experimentally induced changes in ego status on pronunciation ability in a second language: An exploratory study. Comprehensive Psychiatry 13, 421-428.
  • Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., & Mosell, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73 – 98.
  • Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stem. H. H., & Todesco, A. (1996). The good language learner. Clevedon, Avon. England: Multilingual Matters.
  • Nakuma, C. (1998). A new theoretical account of “fossilization”: Implications for L2 attrition research. IRAL, 36, (3), 247-257.
  • Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. IRAL, 9, (2), 115-124.
  • Nickel, G. (1998). The role of interlanguage in foreign language teaching. IRAL, 35, (1), 1-10.
  • Omaggio, A. (2001). Teaching language in context. Proficiency oriented instruction. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Hainle Publishers.
  • Schumann, J. H. (1975). Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning 25, 205-235.
  • Schumann, J. H. (1976a). Second language acquisition research: Getting a more global look at the learner. In Brown, H. (Ed.), Papers in second language acquisition, language learning. Special Issue 4. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan State University.
  • Schumann, J. H. (1976b). Second language acquisition: the pidginization hypothesis. Language Learning, 26, (2), 391-408.
  • Schumann, J. H. (1978a). Social and psychological factors in second language acquisition. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second & foreign language learning (pp. 163–178). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
  • Schumann, J. H. (1978b). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  • Schumann, J. H. (1990). Extending the scope of the acculturation/pidginization model to include cognition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 667-684.
  • Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance. Language Learning, 19, (3 & 4), 245-253.
  • Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, (1), 129-142.
  • Scovel, T. (1982), Questions concerning the application of neurolinguistic research to second language learning/teaching. TESOL Quarterly 16, 323-331.
  • Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. New York, NY: Newbury House/ Harper & Row.
  • Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 213-223.
  • Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, (3), 209-231.
  • Selinker, L., & Lakshamanan, U. (1992). Language transfer and fossilization: The “Multiple Effects Principle”. In S. M. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 197–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Selinker, L., & Lamendella, J. T. (1980). Fossilization in interlanguage learning. In K. Croft (Ed.), Reading on English as a second language (pp. 132–143). Boston. MA: Little, Brown and Company.
  • Selinker, L., Swain, M., & Dumas, G. (1975). The interlanguage hypothesis extended to children. Language Learning, 25, (1), 139-152.
  • Sridhar, S. N. (1980). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlangauge. In Croft, K. (Ed.), Readings on English as a second language. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop.
  • Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, (4), 304-318.
  • Tarone, E. (1976). The phonology of interlanguage. In J.C. Richards (Ed.),Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
  • Todeva, E. (1992). On fossilization in SLA theory. PALM (Papers in Applied Linguistics –Michigan), 7, 216-254.
  • Ushioda, E. (1993). Acculturation theory and linguistic fossilization: A comparative case study. CLCS Occasional Paper No. 31. Dublin, Ireland: Centre for Language and Communication Studies; 56pp. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 368 172).
  • Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization: a tentative model. Language Learning, 26, (2), 281-295.